(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.02 2016가단33782

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.02 2016가단33782

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part claiming KRW 133,600 and damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate in attached Forms 1 through 4.

The Defendants filed a lawsuit on January 16, 2013 against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the purchase price and the compensation for breach of contract (this court 2013Gahap9555) by asserting that the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her obligation as a seller, even though they concluded each contract on the divided real estate in attached Form 1 with the Plaintiff.

The Defendant B, prior to this, obtained a provisional attachment decision on December 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the real estate in attached Forms 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the claimed amount of KRW 198,900,000, and completed the provisional attachment execution on the same day.

Defendant C also completed the execution of provisional attachment on January 11, 2013, with regard to the real estate in attached Forms 3 and 4, with the claimed amount of KRW 95,00,000,000, subject to the ruling of provisional attachment (this Court 2013Kadan386, hereinafter “the ruling of provisional attachment 2”).

B. In response to the lawsuit on the merits, the Plaintiff argued to the effect that the seller of the real estate in the above dispute is not the Plaintiff, but Nonparty D, who is the owner in the registry.

On December 6, 2013, the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's above assertion and sentenced the dismissal judgment, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. After the judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of provisional seizure with this Court 2014Kahap807 against the decision on provisional seizure No. 1.

(A) On July 1, 2014, the above court revoked the provisional attachment order and decided that the litigation cost shall be borne by Defendant B.

(A) The Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of provisional attachment against the provisional attachment order of the instant apartment on August 14, 2014, according to the revocation decision. Around that time, the Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of provisional attachment as the court 2014Kadan50290 against the provisional attachment order of the instant apartment.

In the process of the application, the stamp fee and service fee shall be 66.0

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.11.26 2020나302958

-서울동부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014나2992

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.13 2018가단5215155

-대법원 2008. 7. 1.자 2008마711 결정

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.29 2014가합1934