logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.08.27 2014나8120
소송비용
Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs for the registration of the transfer of land ownership under the Jeonju District Court 91Kahap935, the Jeonju District Court 91Kahap935, and lost the plaintiffs. On April 12, 1994, the plaintiffs filed an application for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under the Jeonju District Court 94Kaga60 in relation to the above lawsuit, and "the amount of litigation costs to be repaid by the defendant is 4,708,730 won" (hereinafter "the decision of this case"). The fact that the decision of this case became final and conclusive on May 4, 1994 does not conflict between the parties, or it can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the items in subparagraphs 1 and 4.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 2,354,365 won each of the decision of this case and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 4, 1994 to August 19, 2004, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case on May 1, 2004 after the ten-year extinctive prescription period from April 12, 1994, from which the decision of this case was issued, and the defendant asserts that the obligation pursuant to the decision of this case was extinguished.

However, the facts that the decision of this case became final and conclusive on May 4, 1994 are as seen earlier, and the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case before the lapse of 10 years from them, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant should start from the time when the defendant became aware that the due date has arrived. The defendant is not aware of the fact that the decision of this case was not served and the decision of this case was rendered, and the defendant has suspended the extinctive prescription of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant.

arrow