logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.19 2019가단104341
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1.The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiffs are the successors of the network D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) that died around 2015.

B. Around 2006, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming damages against D on the ground that D incurred damages due to D’s deceptions.

In the above case, the judgment was rendered on September 30, 2007 that "D shall pay to the defendant 16,00,000 won with 5% per annum from June 1, 2006 to November 17, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and that "D shall pay to the defendant 16,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," which became final and conclusive on September 30, 207 by dismissal of appeal (Seoul High Court 2007Na9247).

(hereinafter “instant damages judgment”) C.

On the other hand, D filed a lawsuit of loan claim against the defendant around 2006 and received a final judgment in favor of the defendant.

(hereinafter “instant loan judgment”) D.

On January 25, 2019, the Defendant received an execution clause succeeding to the Plaintiffs based on the instant damages judgment.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that compulsory execution based on the judgment of the damages in this case is unfair since the defendant's claim based on the judgment of the damages in this case is no longer nonexistent if the claims based on the judgment of the damages in this case are offset by automatic claims.

3. If the obligation to be determined is due to an intentional tort, the obligor cannot set up against the obligee any defense of set-off.

(Article 496 of the Civil Act). However, the judgment of this case is the cause of a claim for tort by deception of D, and the plaintiffs are the inheritors who comprehensively take over the rights and obligations of D, set-off against claims based on the above judgment is not allowed.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

arrow