beta
Text
The Plaintiff
A. Defendant C and D shall each be KRW 50,000,000 and each of them within the scope of the property inherited from the network G.
Reasons
1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, D, and F
A. Claim 1 against Defendant C and D is the same as indicated in the separate sheet for application and the changed cause for application (However, “creditor” is deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “debtor” to be “Defendant”). 2) Articles 208(3)2, 150(3), and 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208(3)2, 150(3), and 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15038, Apr. 2, 200). Also, there is no clearly stating the fact that the Plaintiff alleged as the cause for the claim is not indicated as the cause for the claim. In addition, Defendant
B. Claim 1 against Defendant F is identical to the description of the grounds for application to indicate the claim and the changed grounds for application (However, “creditor” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “debtor” shall be deemed to be “Defendant”; Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (the judgment by service by public notice)
2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E
A. Defendant E, on April 29, 2005, was sentenced to a surcharge of approximately KRW 3.7,12.6 billion for a violation of the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Act and the Foreign Exchange Control Act by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2005, Defendant E asserts to the purport that the obligation to pay a surcharge to the State against the Plaintiff should take precedence over the Plaintiff’s civil defense obligation, and that the lawsuit of this case has no financial capacity for the principal, and thus there is no benefit of lawsuit
However, as a matter of principle, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of performance is asserting the existence of the right to claim performance, and the benefit of protection of rights is recognized, and such benefit is not denied merely because it is virtually impossible or considerably difficult to
(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da255265, Aug. 30, 2016). Accordingly, the Plaintiff may win the judgment, as alleged by Defendant E.