beta
Text
1. The Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Kadan201343 between I Co., Ltd and Defendant B, D, C, and Network J.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 21, 2013, the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I Co., Ltd.”) was sentenced to the judgment (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) stating that “The Defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 29,376,008 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from March 28, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) against Defendant B, D, C, and Network J. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 12, 2013.
B. On June 14, 2013, the non-party company transferred the claim under each of the instant judgments to KA, to KA on June 15, 2013, to L Co., Ltd., to L Co., Ltd., to L Co., Ltd., Apr. 21, 2015, and M Co., Ltd to the Plaintiff on July 18, 2016.
C. The deceased J died on August 5, 2018, and Defendant F, G, and H, the wife of Defendant E and his/her children, filed a report on the inheritance-limited acceptance on September 14, 2018, with the Daejeon Family Court’s official status support 2018-Ma154, and filed the said report on September 14, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings [Provided, That with respect to defendant B, the judgment of service by public notice under Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and judgment of confession under Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act]
2. According to the above facts of recognition, a Junior Administrative Officer, as to the instant judgment between the non-party company and the defendant B, D, C, and the deceased J, shall grant the succeeding execution clause to the plaintiff, who is the successor of the non-party company, to the defendant E, F, G, and H for compulsory execution against the defendant E, F, G, and H, and the above defendants E, F, G, and H shall grant the succeeding execution clause to the plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited by the deceased J.
3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted on the grounds of merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.