logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.09 2014나23739
집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “for example dividends, etc.” of the 10th judgment of the first instance court is “from November 25, 2012 to February 27, 2013,” and the “judicial assistant officer” of the 12th judgment is respectively replaced by “for example dividends, etc., from November 25, 2012 to February 27, 2013,” and the “court clerk who is ordered by the judicial assistant officer” of the 13th judgment is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for the replacement of the 10th judgment under the 10th 10th 10th th 10 below as follows.

2) First of all, during the period from November 25, 2012 to February 27, 2013 when the Defendant applied for the grant of execution clause, the Defendant specified the frequency of the Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff A, B, 43 times, and Plaintiff C’s 30 times, and submitted evidentiary materials to each Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant execution clause was granted upon the Defendant’s application. At the first instance court, the Defendant examined the existence of an offense indicated in the above details of the execution clause: Nos. 5 and 6; Nos. 17, 38, 43; and No. 1, 3, 24, and 25; Plaintiff C’s number 1, 20, among the details of the Plaintiff’s violation; Plaintiff D’s violation; Plaintiff No. 2,5, 36, 21, 206 among the contents of the enforcement clause; Plaintiff’s violation No. 9; Plaintiff No. 2, 206, 126, 320, and 25.

execution clause.

arrow