beta
Text
1. Each counterclaim against the counterclaim Defendant C, the counterclaim Defendant D, the counterclaim Defendant E, and the counterclaim Defendant F, shall be dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. We examine whether each counterclaim against the counterclaim Defendant C, the counterclaim Defendant D, the counterclaim Defendant E, and the counterclaim Defendant F, respectively, is legitimate, and the counterclaim is the Defendant’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant of the principal lawsuit cannot file a counterclaim against a person who is not a party to the principal lawsuit.
However, the fact that the counterclaim Defendant B filed a principal lawsuit claiming damages against the initial counterclaim, but withdrawn the said principal lawsuit, and the fact that the counterclaim Defendant B, the counterclaim Defendant D, the counterclaim Defendant E, and the counterclaim Defendant F is apparent in the record.
Therefore, each counterclaim against the counterclaim Defendant C, the counterclaim Defendant D, the counterclaim Defendant E, and the counterclaim Defendant F is unlawful as having been filed against a person who has no standing to be a party to the counterclaim.
2. Determination on the claim against the counterclaim Defendant B by the counterclaim Plaintiff
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is a person who was the legal spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Nonparty F was obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of money, such as the Plaintiff’s child support and support fees, and the Daejeon District Court’s decision on April 16, 2012 on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant F, based on the record of the conciliation on April 16, 2012, and the Daejeon District Court’s Decision 2013Da1270 decided May 2, 2013.
② On May 22, 2013, the Counterclaim Defendant F entered into an agreement with the Counterclaim Defendant F to the effect that “The Counterclaim Defendant F shall have the right to operate a factory (trade name: H) located in Seodaemun-gu G, and transfer the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000 to the Counterclaim Defendant F, and pay KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 shall be paid to the Counterclaim Defendant F pursuant to the conciliation protocol in the case No. 2011ddan 11654, May 23, 2013.”
③ However, the counterclaim Defendant B is an attorney-at-law prior to the date of conclusion of the above agreement.