beta
Text
1. The defendant's red support of the Daejeon District Court 2007 was based on the judgment of the case, including 1477 down payment return, etc.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 7, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return, etc. of the down payment, etc. on the grounds of the cancellation of the sales contract with respect to the G forest owned by the deceased (hereinafter “the instant land”). On February 6, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment on the following (hereinafter “the instant judgment”) stating that “the deceased would pay the Defendant KRW 45,000,000 and delayed damages thereof to the Defendant” (hereinafter “the instant judgment”). The judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2009, upon filing an appeal and final appeal (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”). B. The Defendant rendered a judgment on February 6, 2009 with the title of the instant claim to the deceased, and obtained the attachment and collection order from the Daejeon District Court on December 38, 2009 (hereinafter “the collection order”).
(c)
On August 7, 2009, a voluntary auction procedure (J branching the Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch) was commenced on or around August 7, 2009, and sold to I and J on February 9, 201, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 22, 201 (hereinafter “instant auction”).
The Deceased died on September 19, 2016, and the Plaintiffs, their children, succeeded to the Deceased.
E. On January 7, 2020, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Deceased for the extension of the prescription period of the claim for the remaining claims that were not collected out of the gold claim of this case, KRW 15,126,450, and delayed damages ( Daejeon District Court 2020Ga Office No. 4777). In that process, the party to the lawsuit for the extension of the prescription period was corrected as the heir, and accordingly, the written application for the change of the purport of the complaint and the claim against the Plaintiffs was served between February 14, 2020 and February 17, 2020 (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit for the extension of prescription period”). The Defendant corrected the parties to the lawsuit for the extension of prescription period as the Plaintiff, and thereafter against the Plaintiffs.