양수금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The plaintiffs' rehabilitation claims against the defendant are 277,710.
1. Scope of trial of the political party after remand;
A. The Defendant (1) (hereinafter “Defendant”) was a juristic person established to run the business of establishing and operating a medical institution, barring any special circumstance, whether before or after the rehabilitation procedures against the Defendant, as examined below. The Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation decision”) on March 19, 2013, and obtained the rehabilitation plan approval order on December 13, 2013.
(2) The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm that the rehabilitation claims of the plaintiffs are KRW 3,200,875,000,000 against the defendant of E, who was acquired from X, the actual representative of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), and KRW 5.81,30,000,00 from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "G") and KRW 5.81,30,000,00 against the defendant of G acquired from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant of this case"), together with the claim for construction payment of KRW 5.81,13,00,00 against the defendant of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the claim of this case" of this case, and the claim of the first and second claims of this case, "each of the claims
(3) The court of first instance accepted all the Plaintiff’s claim and appealed only by the Defendant. The court of first instance affirmed that the Defendant’s claim was 464,00,000 won with respect to the instant claim No. 1, and determined that the Defendant’s claim was 89,3970,000 won with respect to the instant claim No. 2, and that the claim was established with respect to the instant claim No. 2, 698,000 won with respect to the Defendant’s claim of KRW 19,5970,000 (659,970,000 KRW 195,970,000) with respect to the remainder of the Defendant’s claim of KRW 329,985,00 in recognition of the Defendant’s claim of KRW 699,985,00 with respect to the Defendant’s claim of KRW 1,000 x 1/2).
B. The appeal was filed against both parties against the judgment of the first instance prior to the remanding judgment, and the Supreme Court rendered the Defendant’s appeal with respect to “104,550,000 construction cost claim for AM’s construction cost claim based on the Defendant’s rehabilitation claim.”