물품대금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. On April 3, 1997, the Plaintiff’s spouse and the selected party C, D, E, and F’s referenced H (former name: G: hereinafter “the deceased”) supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 35,147,464, which were equivalent to the Plaintiff’s spouse and the selected party C, D, E, and F’s referenced goods. However, the Defendant did not pay the price for the goods, and the deceased was determined to place the provisional attachment on the Defendant’s real property with the claim for the above goods.
After that, the deceased died on December 30, 2018, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the designated parties who are the inheritor of the deceased the amount of money corresponding to each inheritance share out of the above product price claim [the Appointed A:9,585,672 won (3/11 shares), the remaining designated parties respectively (2/11 shares, respectively), and damages for delay.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the deceased filed an application for provisional seizure of the shares owned by the defendant among the 106m2 in Busan District Court as the claim claim amounting to KRW 35,147,464 on March 28, 1997 with the Busan District Court 97Kadan10463, the deceased filed an application for provisional seizure of the shares owned by the defendant among the 106m2 in Busan District Court I, Busan District Court. On April 3, 1997, upon receipt of a provisional seizure decision from the above court on April 7, 1997, the deceased died on December 30, 2018, and thereafter, the deceased died on December 30, 2018, and the facts that the deceased inherited the deceased, who is his spouse, C, D, E, and F, can be recognized respectively.
However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., provisional seizure, etc., ① the existence of a claim in substance is subject to execution by a court judgment, but the existence of such claim is entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and the creditor is under the responsibility of the obligee by the name of the “defluence.” Thus, the mere fact that a provisional seizure order was rendered on the claim in the application for provisional seizure cannot be readily concluded that such claim exists, and this is that the person who has the burden of proof in the lawsuit on the merits must prove the existence