logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.09 2020가단123133
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 45,00,000 and 5% per annum from February 7, 2007 to May 15, 2010.

Reasons

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 and 2, on January 25, 2007, the plaintiff purchased 495 square meters of 2061 square meters of 2061 square meters of forest land in Gangnam-si, Inc. (formerly changed trade name Eul), and paid the purchase price. The plaintiff was in an impossible condition to perform the obligation to transfer the ownership of the above real estate against the plaintiff in the above contract, and the plaintiff against the defendant Eul, based on the special terms and conditions under the above contract, he prepared a letter against the defendant Eul that he would assume all the responsibility for the transfer of the above real estate within the meaning of joint and several sureties, on the ground that "the defendant jointly and severally and severally received 45 million won from the above court and from 2000 square meters of 200 square meters of forest land from the above court to 200 percent of the annual payment of the above real estate to 201 square meters of 200 per annum, the judgment of defendant Eul is recognized as having been paid 70% of June 25, 2015, respectively.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 1, 2020 for the interruption of ten years of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above judgment.

According to these facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 45,000,000 won and 5% per annum from February 7, 2007 to May 15, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant C asserted to the effect that only the principal works as a counselor from E Co., Ltd. and there is no responsibility with regard to the above sales contract of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, since a final and conclusive favorable judgment has res judicata effect, the parties cannot file a new suit on the basis of the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment, in principle, or extinctive prescription is interrupted.

arrow