logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.18 2015가단49727
집행문부여
Text

1. The Seoul Central District Court case No. 2009Kadan156969 between the social company and the Defendants of the Eastyang Korea.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2009, the Korea Central District Court 2009Kadan156969 filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, and on September 30, 2009, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 100,000,000 to the Social Co., Ltd. jointly and severally achieved and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from September 17, 2009 to the day of full payment, and Defendant A and Defendant B paid the amount within the scope not exceeding 270,000,000 in Japanese currency. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

B. On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to give notice of the transfer of claims by taking over claims based on the above judgment from the social community of the Eastyang Korea.

C. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said assignment of claims, but the said notification was not delivered to the Defendants due to the unknown director or the unknown address.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, a copy of the complaint of this case containing the content of notifying the Defendants of the transfer of the claim indicated in the above judgment was sent to the Defendant B, respectively, on May 28, 2015, to the Defendant Cenice License and A, and to the Defendant B on March 27, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the creditor indicated in the above judgment is deemed to have succeeded to the plaintiff, a junior administrative officer, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court has the obligation to grant the execution clause to the plaintiff, a successor to the same social group, for compulsory execution against the defendants.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.

arrow