logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가합11469
집행문부여에 대한 이의
Text

1. As to the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Ra1474 Decided a provisional injunction for reading books, etc. between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant received a provisional disposition order against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition order”) with the following content in the Seoul High Court 2013Ra1474 account books, etc.

1. The Plaintiffs need to allow perusal and copying of the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders in 2011 from 3 days to 09:00 to 18:00 for 20 days, excluding holidays, from the date on which they were served with this decision by Defendant or his/her agent.

2. If the plaintiffs fail to comply with the above decision, the defendant shall pay 500,000 won per day of the violation to the defendant.

B. On August 29, 2014, the Defendant obtained the execution clause based on the instant provisional disposition decision (hereinafter “instant execution clause”) on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not allow the perusal and copying of books, etc. within the period stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the instant provisional disposition decision. On September 4, 2014, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Bank under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014TTTTT17488, based on the executory decision of the instant provisional disposition decision, around September 4, 2014. The said court rendered a decision to accept the said application on September 11, 2014.

C. The Plaintiffs received each of the instant provisional disposition orders on June 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The alleged plaintiffs allowed the Defendant to inspect and copy the documents quoted in accordance with the instant provisional disposition decision, and thus all obligations under the said decision were fulfilled.

Therefore, there is no room for the Plaintiffs to be obliged to pay money to the Defendant according to the decision of indirect compulsory performance among the provisional disposition of this case.

arrow