(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2017.10.17 2017가단1502

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원경주지원 2017.10.17 2017가단1502

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's respective claims of this case are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a special representative of G, filed a suit for a retrial against the Defendants at the Daegu District Court 2014Na136, Daegu District Court 2009Na2741 (the appellate court that dismissed the appeal against G, etc. against the Daegu District Court 2007Gadan5727), but the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that “the instant suit for retrial shall be dismissed. The Plaintiff shall be borne by the Plaintiff, who is represented by a special representative,” on the ground that the suit for retrial was filed by the Plaintiff who is not the power of attorney on June 23, 2016, and that the said judgment of dismissal became final and conclusive on July 13, 2016.”

B. On November 7, 2016, the Defendants filed an application with this Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under this Court’s 2016Kao 3042, and this Court rendered a decision on November 7, 2016 that “The amount of litigation costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants according to the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Na136 Decided the transfer of ownership between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be determined as KRW 376,437, respectively (hereinafter “the determination of the amount of litigation costs of this case”), and the said determination was finalized on November 18, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that compulsory execution based on the determination of the amount of litigation costs in this case should not be denied, since all the above dismissal judgment, the above retrial judgment, and the previous judgments were erroneous.

The plaintiff's above assertion is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion only with the evidence of Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.05.31 2017나452

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단5139964

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.11.16 2017가단3639

-청주지방법원 2019.10.24 2019가합11866

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.08 2019나597