logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.12.20 2018가합203849
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H jointly set forth in KRW 120,00,000 and as regards them:

B. Defendant C, I, and J.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On March 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and networkO ( Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gahap333), and on April 15, 2008, “Defendant B, C, D, E, F, H, H, and networkO” from the above court as of April 15, 2008 with respect to the amount of KRW 120,00,000 per annum and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from August 5, 2007 to the day of full payment, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 6, 2008.

B. After the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, there were Defendant K, Defendant L, M, and N, the spouse of the deceased as his heir, and the above Defendants were subject to the judgment of limited recognition by inheritance.

Seoul Family Court (the Seoul Family Court 2019Jama327).

Therefore, for the interruption of the prescription of the claim for damages arising from the above final judgment, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendants for the performance of the claim, and as regards Defendant K, L, M, and N, the heir of the networkO, the Plaintiff claims the performance according to their statutory shares in inheritance within the scope of the property inherited from the networkO.

2. Applicable provisions;

A. As to Defendant B, C, D, J, K, L, M, and N: Article 208(3)2, Article 150(3), and Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (a) (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment by deeming the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the networkO), Defendant K, L, M, and N did not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and only received the Plaintiff’s claim within the scope of the property inherited from the networkO. Accordingly, the Plaintiff modified the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in accordance with the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion, and the Defendants did not respond to the modified claim and the cause of the claim, and thus, deemed as a confession thereafter).

B. As to Defendant E, F, G, H, and I: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (by public notice)

arrow