구상금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff 287,057,167 and their importance.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
If the second sentence of the first instance judgment, “from the E Bank” under the second sentence of Article 21 is added, and “No. 4, 2015.” The fourth sentence of the first instance judgment is amended, and “No. 4, 2015.” Following the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the registration of credit management information was made around December 22, 2016,” is added.
In the first instance judgment, the Defendants’ liability should be limited to 30% in light of the overall circumstances.”
On the 8th written judgment of the first instance, “Article 29(2)” is added to “Article 49(2).”
In addition, Article 50 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is to clarify the attorney-at-law from among the members in performing the duties of the attorney-at-law in relation to the lawsuit, etc. prescribed in Articles 3 and 49 of the Attorney-at-law Act, and Article 209 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to Article 58 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act, and its purport and scope are different, so the application of the above provisions of the Commercial Act cannot be excluded on the basis of Article 50 of the Attorney-at-law Act.
Part 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is not more than 4, as follows.
5) The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case against the defendants without harming the plaintiff's attempt of compulsory execution such as provisional seizure against the law firm C and D's properties constitutes abuse of rights.
In full view of the purport of the pleadings as a result of the reply to the submission of each financial transaction information by the court of first instance to the E-bank and the G Union, the Plaintiff’s property investigation against the law firm C and D around January 17, 2017.