beta
Text
1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking the performance of joint and several liability obligations with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap11586, the said court rendered a judgment on August 22, 2014 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 857,208,825 won, and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from March 25, 2014 to August 22, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said court appealed as Seoul High Court 2014Na2034131, but the said judgment dismissed Defendant B’s appeal on July 16, 2015, which became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff Company received the order of seizure and collection as to KRW 350,000,000 among the claims to refund the lease deposit against Defendant B by Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TT15692, based on the above provisional execution sentence, and the said order reached Defendant D on September 30, 2014.
C. Defendant D, who is the buyer of Defendant B, completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 16, 2003 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of sale on May 9, 2003, and Defendant B is residing in the instant real estate from around 2007.
Plaintiff
During the course of the obligee subrogation lawsuit filed by the company against Defendant D, Defendant B was declared bankrupt on December 8, 2015, and the attorney-at-law of the bankrupt debtor B, who is the party taking over the lawsuit of Plaintiff A, was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee of Defendant B.
(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hau 9437, 2015, 9437). Since then, the bankruptcy debtor B, the lawsuit of the plaintiff company, the bankruptcy debtor B, the lawsuit of the plaintiff company, C took over the lawsuit of this case in accordance with Articles 347 (1) and 406 (1) and (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination on the cause of the claim.