beta
Text
1. Each lawsuit against the Defendants by Plaintiffs A, B, and C against Defendant E, respectively, and Defendant B and C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs were sentenced to the first instance judgment that “F shall pay to Plaintiff A 581,229,082 won, Plaintiff B, and C each of the above amounts at the rate of 20% per annum from November 24, 2010 to the date of full payment.”
(Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap23709). The F appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the F's appeal on October 12, 2012 (Seoul High Court 2012Na24844), and the final appeal period was over time.
B. On May 29, 2014, based on the foregoing judgment, the Plaintiffs received a collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2014TF 2014TT 9833; hereinafter “first seizure collection order”) against “the amount of money until each of the following claims is claimed among the claims against the Defendants,” and the said order was served on the Defendants on June 2, 2014, respectively.
The amount claimed by the Defendant D 30,000,000 won for Defendant D 200,000,000 won for Defendant D 80,000,000 won for Defendant D 300,000,000 won for Defendant E 300,000,000 won for Defendant D 80,000,000 won for Defendant E30,000,000 won for Defendant E
C. After January 6, 2016 based on the above judgment, Plaintiff B and C received a collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2015TTT 103960, hereinafter “the second collection order”) against “the amount until it reaches KRW 140,000,000 among the credit account receivable that F has against Defendant D,” and the said order was served on Defendant D on January 8, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim based on the seizure collection order, among the plaintiffs' respective lawsuits against the defendants
A. The gist of the cause of the claim was F’s order of seizure and collection against F’s claim against the Defendants, and the decision was served on the Defendants.