logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2014나13982
채무부존재확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiffs' manager AK (the indication before correction of the indication: X corporation) of the defendant rehabilitation company X corporation.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is based on the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following parts to the 6th judgment of the first instance court No. 6.11. As such, the court's explanation is based on the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

X was decided on August 9, 2012, before the filing of the instant lawsuit, by the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Ma141, and the Defendant custodian was appointed as the custodian, and the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, on September 26, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court 201Hau139, and the Defendant Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.

2. The plaintiffs asserted as the cause of the claim of this case: ① Defendant Korea Land Trust, X, and Defendant Master Industry bears the duty of the plaintiffs to move into the apartment of this case by July 2012, which is the scheduled date of moving into the apartment of this case according to each of the sales contracts of this case; ② Defendant Korea Land Trust, X, and Defendant Master Industry is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs KRW 1,000,000 for each of the compensation stipulated in each of the sales contracts of this case, and ② the plaintiffs failed to move into the apartment of this case due to the above reasons, as the subcontractor of X due to the default of X exercised a lien on the apartment of this case, and the infrastructure of the apartment of this case was not installed; and there was a significant defect to the extent that the apartment of this case is difficult to move into the apartment of this case, and thus, it is still impossible for the plaintiffs to move into the apartment of this case by the due date of the settlement contract of this case.

arrow