beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, 21 square meters stated in the separate sheet 1, 3, 4, 5 real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 821 square meters prior to the subdivision of real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 8, 5, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance was divided into real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 209 and J forest 2,821 square meters. Since J forest was divided into real estate listed in the separate sheet 3, 3, 4, and 5 on July 19, 2010, the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 before the subdivision was divided into real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, 13, 2, 3, 2, 3, and 4, as stated in the separate sheet 2, as stated below.
2. Determination as to the defendants' assertion added in the trial
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) On January 2004, the Plaintiff asserted the waiver of claim or exemption of obligation had a final and conclusive judgment and execution clause with respect to E, and at the time, E had real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
(2) The Plaintiff did not file an application for compulsory execution against each of the above real estate despite the knowledge of the ownership of the pertinent real estate. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to enforce compulsory execution against the principle of good faith may be deemed to have renounced his/her claim against E or exempted his/her obligation. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that it constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith or constitutes an abuse of rights. Around January 2004, the Plaintiff did not take any measure for about ten (10) years since it was possible to recover the claim through compulsory execution against E-owned real estate. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the revocation of fraudulent act is contrary to the principle of good faith or is subject to rights