beta
Text
1.(a)
In the trial of the court, the receiver of the rehabilitation company, which is the taking-off of the lawsuit of the defendant Kim Jong-nam Company.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
o All the “Defendant Ho-nam Enterprise” is both the “Seoul-Nam Enterprise,” and all the “Defendant Additional Construction” is both the “Defendant Additional Construction” to the “Joint Defendant Additional Construction for the First Instance” (hereinafter the same shall apply). The following matters and [based on recognition] are added to the “No. 12” below the “Joint Defendant Additional Construction for the First Instance” (hereinafter the same shall apply):
F. On April 7, 2015, in the course of the instant lawsuit, the rehabilitation procedure was commenced for the Sejongnam Company (Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap10070), and B was appointed as a manager and taken over the litigation procedure.
(2) The Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 33,39,892,175 of the commercial transaction claims of the Gyeongnam Company as rehabilitation claims in the above rehabilitation procedure, and the Defendant’s administrator raised an objection against the total amount of the above reported claims.
2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on the claim for the Defendant custodian and the Hanyang is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
o Part 12, 8, 13, 15 of the Judgment of the first instance court is as follows.
(1) As to the claim for deduction of value-added tax, the above Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot claim damages equivalent to value-added tax since they are entitled to deduct or refund the amount of value-added tax, out of the cost of repairing defects, since they correspond to the input tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is an apartment with an exclusive area of 85 square meters or less, and the Value-Added Tax Act and the Value-Adde