공탁금 출급청구권 확인
1. A deposit list in annexed Form 1 deposited by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City North Korea on July 15, 2009 by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City North Korea to a deposit official of the Ulsan District Court.
1. Indication of claim: The description in the corresponding column of the Defendants in the annexed Form 2.
2. Claim against Defendant B and Defendant E: Each judgment deeming confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. Claims against Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant F: Decision by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act), the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit with the knowledge that they did not have any right to claim, which constitutes an obvious litigation fraud deceiving the court (Article 347 of the Criminal Act).
B. On April 21, 2010, the full bench decided to recommend reconciliation, and the decision and the reasons are as follows.
C. The parties to the lawsuit did not object to the above ruling of recommending reconciliation, and the above lawsuit was finalized on May 8, 2010.
(Evidence A 7 - The written decision of recommending reconciliation, Gap evidence 8 - the search of the case). 5. The grounds for filing the instant lawsuit
A. Pursuant to the final and conclusive settlement recommendation, the Plaintiff Company’s claim for payment of deposited goods was confirmed, and the Plaintiff Company shall complete the withdrawal of the deposited money based on the relative uncertainty against the non-party AI and four other persons.
B. The Plaintiff Company filed the instant lawsuit seeking the confirmation that all deposits of the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City North Korea, Ulsan Metropolitan City, which were based on relative uncertaintys, are identical to basic facts and issues, and thus, it is possible to pay the remainder of the deposit. However, as the Plaintiffs refused the Plaintiff Company’s request for withdrawal on the ground that the said decision made the deposit designated as the principal deposit and the remainder of the deposit is not paid in advance, the Plaintiff Company’s refusal of the request for withdrawal on the ground that the said decision was made by the Plaintiffs as the principal deposit, and the Plaintiff Company’s request for withdrawal on the remaining deposit is the principal deposit holder.
6. As examined in the above conclusion, a total of 279 households out of the AE Complex.