beta
Text
1. The Defendants respectively share KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff and each of them, Defendant Co., Ltd. from January 14, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff issued cashier’s checks and Defendant permanent livestock industry cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant Han Bank”) on the following grounds for division of property from the supplementary intervenor during the course of the divorce lawsuit (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”) between the supplementary intervenor and Busan Family Court No. 2015dhap200800, and 200531 (Counterclaim) (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”).
(2) Issuance of cashier’s checks (1) together with cashier’s checks (1) are “each of the instant checks.”
(1) The amount of money: KRW 100 million: C, number of a check: date of issuance; date of permanent residence in North Korea on August 5, 2015; date of issuance; date of permanent residence in North Korea; amount of KRW 2: 100 million; date of issuance; date of issuance; D; date of permanent residence in North Korea on June 15, 2015; date of issuance; and date of payment; Place of permanent residence in the livestock cooperative; and place of permanent residence in the livestock cooperative.
B. Around December 28, 2015, the Intervenor filed an accident report on each of the instant checks on the grounds of theft, and applied for a public summons under the Daegu District Court Decision 2015KaGong28, An applicant for the payment of each of the instant checks on January 13, 2016. However, the Defendants refused payment on the ground that the Defendants filed an accident report on each of the instant checks.
C. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the right to a branch of the Daegu District Court, and on April 19, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment of nullification with the withholding court that suspended the Plaintiff’s right to each of the instant checks and invalidated each of the instant checks.
The Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant checks was issued by the Intervenor as a property division in the divorce lawsuit of this case.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including a branch number if there is a tentative number), the same shall apply below
3.3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is limited to the period of presentation for payment.