beta
Text
1. Revocation of the decision subject to quasi-examination;
2. Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff) is from C to the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 3, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 600,000,000 to C at an interest rate of 30% per annum without setting the due date. (ii) C died on March 17, 2008. The heir is a person born between D and D, who is the current husband, and the Defendants born between E and F, who was divorced before approximately 27 years ago (hereinafter “C’s heir”).
B. On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application against C for the same payment order as the purport of the claim under subparagraph 2 of Article 2009Da3597 of this Court on June 15, 2009, and then C’s heir did not receive the above payment order, again, submitted to C’s heir for the litigation procedure under this court 2009Gahap12562. The delivery of the complaint against the Defendants was made on December 4, 2009 by the Defendant on H apartment 204 Dong 2501 (hereinafter “H apartment”).
(2) The service report states that D was received respectively as the defendant's live-in partner. 2) The court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation on February 19, 2010 to the effect that "the service report was received at the rate of 20% per annum from November 3, 2009 to the date of full payment, and E and the defendants shall pay 133,33,333 won per annum and 20% per annum from December 5, 2009 to the date of full payment." The service of recommending settlement with the defendants was made at H apartment on February 26, 2010, and the service report was also received by the defendants as "D" and it was not confirmed to have been received by the defendants.
The letter of recommendation for reconciliation in this case contains H apartment units, which are the place of service of the Defendants, and the place of service of the Defendants, as the place of service of the Defendants, as the place of service of the Defendants.
C. Claim for a qualified acceptance trial by the Defendants, and claim for quasi-examination of this case 1.