beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 696,295,973 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 22, 2017 to September 13, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on November 2, 2016 against the Changwon District Court 2015Gahap35492 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On November 2, 2016, the Changwon District Court rendered a judgment that “Defendant B shall be paid KRW 971,037,367 from the Plaintiff, and simultaneously upon receiving payment from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate on September 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant prior sale”).”
B. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants appealed. On September 14, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment of the first instance on the following: “Defendant B received KRW 1,023,704,027 from the Plaintiff; at the same time, Defendant B changed the judgment of the first instance court to the effect that “it shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the preceding sale of the instant real estate” with respect to the instant real estate (Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2016Na25259)”; the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on October 11, 2017.
(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”) C.
After the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, there was a dispute over the implementation of the preceding judgment of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Defendant B sold the instant real estate in KRW 1,720,000 between D, E, and F on November 7, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D, E, and F on November 22, 2017.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's 1 through 9
2. The plaintiff's assertion was led by the defendant C, and the defendant B conspired to sell the real estate of this case to D, E, and F despite the preceding judgment of this case, the plaintiff could not acquire the ownership of the real estate of this case. This constitutes a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants jointly committed the tort against the plaintiff.