1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit resulting from an additional judgment are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. The Defendants filed the instant counterclaim on April 29, 2015, and this Court rendered a judgment only on April 30, 2015, and rendered an additional judgment on the instant counterclaim.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants embezzled the above amount without returning it to the creditors group despite having been paid an amount equivalent to KRW 20 million for service costs by agreement with the successful bidders of land E as joint representatives of the creditors group who exercise the right of retention. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay the above service costs of KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

B. On its ex officio determination, Article 269(1) main text of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The defendant may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending, not later than the closure of pleadings, only where it does not delay litigation procedures significantly.” Thus, a counterclaim filed after the closure of the pleadings is unlawful.

However, since the record clearly shows that the pleading against the principal lawsuit was filed on April 29, 2015 after the closure of April 16, 2015, the counterclaim in this case is inappropriate and it is deemed that it constitutes a case where the defects cannot be corrected, and thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. If so, the defendants' counterclaim of this case is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.