beta
Text
1. The part of the first instance judgment against Plaintiff E shall be revoked.
Plaintiff
E The lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff A, B, C, D, and F.
Reasons
1. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff E was unlawful, since the Plaintiff E died before the instant lawsuit was filed.
According to the records, Plaintiff E died on December 8, 2014, and around March 2016, Plaintiff E’s letter of delegation of litigation was prepared, and the instant lawsuit was filed under Plaintiff E’s name on April 7, 2016.
Plaintiff
The lawsuit of this case in the name of E is unlawful as the lawsuit filed by the deceased.
2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the claims of plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and F are as follows, except for the cases where the judgment on the claims of plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and F is added, since the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the part against the above plaintiffs among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, they are cited under the main sentence of Article 420
[Supplementary part of the attached Table] The plaintiff A, B, C, D, and F have been directly or separately employed from December 2, 2005 to possess and manage each of the real estate listed in the attached Table by jointly employing a manager. Thus, the plaintiff A, B, C, D, and F asserts that there exists a lien on each of the real estate listed in the attached Table.
According to the statements in Gap evidence 1, 5, and Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), it is recognized that the Ulsan District Court's S real estate status survey report states that "The present one is the oral statement that he/she currently occupies (he/she owns and directly occupies) all of the buildings of this case from June 2000 to the date when he/she fails to pay 1.9 billion won due to multiple statements other than the occupant of lien office C," and that the plaintiff Eul entered into a labor contract with T, etc. from July 3, 201 to J lien B, etc.
However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence Nos. 3 as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned facts alone were jointly occupied and managed by Plaintiff A, B, C, D, and F from December 2005.
On a different premise, the plaintiffs A, B, C, D, and F.