logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.28 2015나51215
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff requested the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gaso1865 Management Expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”), which was acquired against B, C, and D, to carry out an executory performance recommendation decision of the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gasoso1865 Management Expenses, etc. (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”), with the title of execution, to seize and collect the relevant claim: ① on April 14, 2014, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2014TTT7302; ② the debtor C, D, and the third debtor as the Defendant, and C, and D are against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”). The respective site usage fees (hereinafter the “instant land”).

3) On the ground, the Defendant’s building at the Social Welfare Center (hereinafter “Welfare Center”).

(2) Upon the issuance of a new collection order from January 1, 1988 to December 31, 2024, C & D received a new collection order against C’s claim of KRW 2,038,10, and D’s claim of KRW 2,038,00, total amount of KRW 4,076,10, and KRW 4,000 from D’s claim of KRW 2,038,00, and total amount of KRW 4,076,10) from among the instant land usage fees claims of this case owned by C and D against the Defendant. ② On April 23, 2014, Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Da1280, Jun. 23, 2014, B and C were the Defendant against the Defendant (B, 48.21/4314, and the Defendant owned the instant building on the land of this case, and seized and seized the above collection order against the Defendant.

B. The Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land and its adjacent land, which is the land of this case, were registered as the land subject to the site ownership of G apartment, which is the original aggregate building. However, the Defendant was to acquire the land of this case where G apartment building was not constructed by consultation and to newly construct the instant welfare center on the ground of the instant land.

arrow