beta
Text
1. It is based on the Defendant’s Seoul District Court Decision 2017Da34164 Decided June 13, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the division of the building jointly owned with the Defendant and the payment of the amount equivalent to the royalty of the instant land against 390 persons, including the Plaintiff and H, who owned by E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) after acquiring the ownership of the said two parcels of land and D large 314 square meters (the combination of the two parcels of land) and D large 305 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). On June 13, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the division of the building jointly owned with the Defendant and the payment of the amount equivalent to the royalty of the instant parcel of land, with the 390 persons, including the Plaintiff and H, from June 29, 2017 to June 20, 2019, the lower court jointly rendered a final judgment that included the Plaintiff’s “the Plaintiff, H, etc.” in the delivery of the instant land from June 29, 2017 to 2018.
B. Following the instant judgment: (a) Money calculated at the rate of KRW 281,120 each month according to the instant judgment was paid once from October 25, 2017 to October 25, 2019; (b) the relevant payment was made once in the following order in the name of H; (c) November 25, 2019; (d) November 281, 2019; and (e) March 281, 2019; (e) December 281, 2019; and (e) December 281, 2019; (e) April 28, 2024; and (e) June 201, 208; and (e) June 25, 202:
C. At the time of the closing of argument, the instant land was not delivered to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion has been continuously paid the amount corresponding to the usage fee of the land of this case by the judgment of this case, but the plaintiff et al. filed an application for the seizure and collection order. Therefore, compulsory execution according to the judgment of this case is enforced.