beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claims are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion ① The Plaintiff (referring to both the appointed parties, hereinafter the appointed parties, and the appointed parties, regardless of the appointed parties, and all the Plaintiff) holds a claim against the Acooned, BB apartment reconstruction association, and BC apartment reconstruction association, which was finalized by the Busan High Court Decision 2012Na7564, 7571 Decided November 21, 2013.
② AB apartment reconstruction association, BB apartment reconstruction association, and BC apartment reconstruction association have against the Defendants a claim for compensation for damages or a claim for the agreed amount of compensation for damages arising from the discontinuance of construction in the process of construction in the process of construction in the major apartment construction in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and 16 lots of land.
③ On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff, based on the foregoing stated claims, was subject to a decision of seizure and collection order (subsan District Court 2013TTT 30638) within the scope of KRW 395,238,529 with respect to the claims stated above (2). The original copy of the said decision was served on the Defendants on December 11, 2013 and December 12, 2013.
2. The judgment of the court of this case is without any evidence to acknowledge that the ASEAN, BB apartment reconstruction association, and BC apartment reconstruction association has against the Defendants a claim for compensation for damage or a claim for the agreed amount of compensation for damage due to the discontinuance of construction in the process of constructing a new major apartment on the land of Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and 16 lots. According to the judgment of the Busan High Court 2013Na5534 decided August 14, 2014, it can be recognized that members, other than the above associations, have a claim for consolation money against the Defendants. Even if the above associations and members agreed to reserve part of consolation money to the association, even if they did not go through the procedures such as assignment of claims, part of the claim for consolation money against the Defendants is not naturally belonging to the above association. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.