beta
Text
1. The Suwon District Court shall authorize the final claim inspection judgment of 2018 U.S.C. 65 dated May 8, 2019.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff A acquired the ownership of 1,031 square meters in E field (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land is laid underground where sewage and pipes for discharging rainwater generated from the debtor C Foundation (hereinafter “debtor Foundation”) are laid underground, and there was two manle on the ground.
Accordingly, Plaintiff A filed an application for conciliation with the debtor foundation to seek the removal of the above facilities and the delivery of the instant land (U.S. District Court Decision 2018S. 280). On May 30, 2018, the instant case was concluded following conciliation between Plaintiff A and the debtor foundation (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).
From December 1, 2017 to 1, 2017, the debtor foundation lost the Plaintiff’s ownership of E field 1,031 square meters in Singu, Plaintiff A, and (2) the debtor foundation removes approximately 50 meters of each Manle installed on the ground of approximately 3 square meters of the part indicated in the attached Form among the land in question and the part indicated with the same drawing, and pays to Plaintiff A money calculated at the rate of KRW 15,00,000 per month from the time of delivery until the first arrival between the time of delivery and delivery.
B. On June 27, 2018, this Court appointed F as the administrator of the debtor foundation upon a decision to commence rehabilitation (U.S. District Court 2018 Gohap10036), and subsequently appointed D on November 12, 2018 as the administrator of the debtor foundation, upon resignation of the administrator F.
C. According to the rehabilitation procedures commenced against the debtor foundation, the plaintiff A reported the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 105,000,000 as rehabilitation claims according to the instant conciliation, and the plaintiff B reported the loan claim of KRW 39,001,00 as rehabilitation claims.
As to this, the Defendant reported rehabilitation claims by the Plaintiff A due to the grounds of denial under Article 100(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).