손해배상(건)
1.(a)
In the trial of the party, the rehabilitation debtor, who is the taking-off of the lawsuit of the defendant Kim Jong-nam Company.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following addition, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following subparagraph (e) of paragraph 7 of the 9th sentence of the first instance court shall be added to the following paragraph (7) of the first instance court, and the phrase “B B” shall be added to [based grounds for recognition].
On April 7, 2015, in the process of the instant lawsuit against Defendant Sejong-Nam, the rehabilitation procedure was commenced on April 7, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10070, and the procedure was initiated on April 7, 2015, and the two were appointed as the administrator and taken over.
(hereinafter) For convenience, the rehabilitation debtor, who is the taking-off of the lawsuit between the defendant Kim Nam and the debtor Kim Jong-nam and the defendant Kim Jong-nam, refers to the "defendant Kim Jong-nam" without distinguishing the manager B of the company.
2. As to the judgment on the defense of the principal safety of Defendant Chungcheongnam-Nam, the Plaintiff asserted that the report on the rehabilitation claim against the damage claim of this case was unlawful on the ground that it did not meet the grounds for subsequent supplementation, and thus, the Plaintiff failed to report the damage claim of this case as the rehabilitation claim by May 13, 2015, which is the reporting period, and thus, the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties. However, the special inspection date was held on February 3, 2016 to investigate the rehabilitation security right that was subsequently reported, including the damage claim of this case, and the rehabilitation claim, and the grounds for objection raised on the special inspection date was “a rejection during the lawsuit” (see the notice of objection attached to the Plaintiff’s written request for continuation of legal proceedings as of March 2, 2016). In light of the above facts alone, it is difficult to recognize that the above recognition alone was unlawful because it did not meet the grounds for subsequent supplementation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.