A. The defendant is a clan of which the 10 descendants of C CC C C, D, is a joint ancestor, and the plaintiff has been working as a separate clan from around 1983 to the 1983 that has jointly set up F, four children, which is the four children of E.

B. On July 19, 2008, the Defendant, at an extraordinary general meeting, paid the compensation for the expropriation of the land owned by a clan as a subsidy for promoting the dissolution of the church. After the Defendant decided to pay KRW 400 million to the “Gmm”, the Defendant paid KRW 400 million to the Nonparty H, etc., who is Gmph.

C. The Plaintiff was partly awarded a favorable judgment with the purport that “H shall pay to the Plaintiff 13,80,000 won per annum from September 1, 2008 to August 22, 2018, 5% per annum, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” to the effect that “H shall pay to the Plaintiff 13,80,000 won per annum, and 135% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

Plaintiff

Although H appealed against the winning portion, the Gwangju High Court dismissed the appeal of H on July 12, 2019, and H appeals are currently pending in the Supreme Court.

H alleged in the above civil case that the victim of the tort was the defendant not the plaintiff, but the court of the first instance and the appellate court rejected the claim of H in full view of the following: (a) although the court of the first instance and the appellate court asserted that “It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is the plaintiff to be the plaintiff, who had a unique meaning of clan from around 1983; (b) the defendant decided to grant subsidies to the plaintiff who is not an individual, including H, and H et al. received subsidies by submitting a letter to the defendant; and (c) H et al. received subsidies on behalf of the plaintiff, such as submitting a letter to the defendant; and (d) H et al. bears the duty to keep and use

E. Meanwhile, H is at the Suwon District Court on January 31, 2019.