beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendants based on the determination of the amount of litigation cost set by this Court No. 2012Kao-598.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendants filed an application against the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs set forth in this Court No. 2012Kaba598, and this Court rendered a ruling on March 29, 2013 that the amount of litigation costs payable to the said Defendants is KRW 1,290,213, based on the ruling in the case of unjust enrichment 2009Gahap8516 at this court. The said ruling became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013.
B. Defendant C filed an application against the Plaintiff for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in this Court No. 2012Kaba3677, as the designated parties to the Defendants, the designated parties, and this Court decided on November 7, 2012, Seoul High Court 2009Na1142211, that the Plaintiff’s reimbursement to the Defendant C (Appointed Party) is KRW 1,200,000, and the said decision became final and conclusive on November 20, 2012.
C. The Defendants applied for a compulsory auction for real estate owned by the Plaintiff to the Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch E on the basis of the claims pursuant to the above decision, and the auction was commenced on June 26, 2014.
C. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 4,218,90 (2,709,450 of the litigation cost of Defendant C, KRW 219,237 of the auction cost, KRW 1,290,213 of the litigation cost of Defendant B, KRW 219,237 of the auction cost, and KRW 219,237 of the auction cost of the auction case) with the Defendants as deposited as the principal.
[Ground of Recognition] Regarding Defendant B: Evidence Nos. 1-3, 4, 2-1, 2, 3-1, 4-1, and 4-1, as to Defendant C: The Civil Procedure Act of deemed confession
2. According to the above facts of recognition, each of the above decisions shall be excluded in its execution, since the obligations against the Defendants by the decision of determination of the amount of each of the above costs of lawsuit are all extinguished by the Plaintiff’s deposit for repayment.
As to this, Defendant B did not receive the said deposit due to the seizure and collection order against Defendant B’s claim for payment of deposit money against Korea.