beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff and KRW 100,930,850.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the immediate preceding of the 11th "3. conclusion" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept
However, in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants jointly enter KRW 144,186,929 as well as the statement about the plaintiff's 144,186,929, and its related thereto" in the 11th judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, unless there are any special circumstances, the defendants jointly move to the plaintiff to KRW 144,186,929 and it
2. Additional determination
A. On August 18, 2014, the first instance judgment of the first instance on the Plaintiff’s claim stated “instant agreement” as “instant agreement.”
(See the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, barring any special reference; hereinafter the same shall apply) is used as it is the expression of the judgment of the court of first instance. Of note, the expression of the judgment of the court of first instance in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case refers to a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the Defendants 5 and N against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in the Daejeon District Court regarding the case of foreign compulsory auction of real estate filed on June 3, 2014 (Public Notice Support 2014Ga20208).
(See Evidence No. 4) The defendants asserted that the part related to N in the agreement under the agreement dated August 18, 2014 is invalid as a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intention) among the claims related to N in N in the above agreement were asserted in this court as follows.
In other words, with respect to the agreement under the agreement dated August 18, 2014, stating that “the part brought by N among the lawsuits of demurrer against the distribution of this case shall be resolved by the Defendants.” The agreement in this case was concluded between the Plaintiff company and the Defendants, without considering the amount of claims against the owner H of the instant tenement house asserted by N in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case before the agreement in this case.