beta
Text
1. Nonparty B:
A. As to the real estate stated in the attached list, Defendant A shall have jurisdiction over the Gwangju District Court's head office on March 1998.
Reasons
1. The facts constituting the cause of the claim indicated in the separate sheet do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea may be acknowledged in full view of the respective entries and the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6.
2. Defendant Republic of Korea: (a) acquired 4,200 shares 42,00 shares issued by Nonparty C, a debtor, who runs the construction business prior to the present proposal, and currently holds 10% of the shares issued by Nonparty C, a debtor, in accordance with the method of appraisal of unlisted shares under Article 63(1)1 (b) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; (b) calculated the appraised value of the same shares by reference to the method of appraisal of unlisted shares under said delegation, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that: (c) its active property is KRW 27,062 per share around June 17, 2019; and (d) its total property is KRW 113,60,400 (=27,062 x 4,200 shares) and its total property is totaling 9,966,54 (Subrogation amounting to KRW 88,688,059 + Damages amounting to 14,15414,514
On the other hand, the debtor's insolvency in the creditor subrogation lawsuit means that the debtor's insolvency in the creditor subrogation lawsuit does not have a financial ability, and the time of the judgment shall be determined as at the time of the conclusion of the argument. In full view of the purport of the whole arguments in the evidence No. 7 above, as well as the claim amounting to the plaintiff 47,616,00 won, E, 477,000 won, 17,965,000 won, G Credit Management Department, 14,244,000 won, 3,63,000 won, 7,686,000 won, and 3,686,000 won, 3,627,000 won, L, 3,349,000 won, 3,000 won, 401,000 won, 17,015,000 won, 16,000 won, etc., of the defendant's insolvency.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate and acceptable.