beta
Text
1. Of the litigation for retrial of this case, Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act added by the plaintiffs in this court.
Reasons
1. Article 268(4) of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed to have been withdrawn from the appeal, as the joint Plaintiff E of the first instance court did not file an application for designation of the date within one month after the date of pleading was not present at the appellate court twice.
Therefore, this Court examines only the appeal against the Defendants of the Plaintiff A, B, C, and D.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.” when they refer to both the Plaintiffs and E at once). 2. The following facts are significant or apparent in this court.
Plaintiff
A The deceased I’s spouse, the rest of the plaintiffs and E are the deceased I’s children, and the Defendants were the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, which are deemed to be the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, and died on June 4, 2013, which was after the above judgment became final and conclusive.
B. On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff et al. filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap110683 case; hereinafter “case subject to review”) against the deceased F.
The purport of the claim is that the deceased F shall pay to the plaintiff A 27,272,755 won, the plaintiff B, the plaintiff C, the plaintiff C, the plaintiff D, and E respectively, 18,181,837 won and damages for delay on the above money, and the summary of the cause of the claim is as follows.
Plaintiff
The deceased I, who is the deceased, shall be the land of this case from H, which is not more than 69m2 in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
And the building of this case is 3.06m2 or less of the 33.06m2 store in the sap and apex.
The registration title trust agreement was concluded between B and B on the whole land and building in this case between B and B in the future of the network F, and the network F.
Since J, the birth of the network I, on behalf of the network I, sold only 1/2 of the instant land to the networkF on behalf of the network I, the network I was the owner of the instant land and the instant building even after the said contract was concluded.
However, the networkF, however, sells the land of this case to another person and has the authority to sell the building of this case to the effect that the registered name of the land and the building of this case is in the future.