beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
All of the request for taking over a lawsuit by the CT Applicant is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court determined as to the assertion (ground of appeal No. 1) including misapprehension of legal principles as to the division of inherited property, and incomplete deliberation, etc. (ground of appeal No. 1), on the right to claim damages that Plaintiff CO, CM, CN, CP, Q, AFS, AFT, AFT, AFU, and AFV acquired through an agreement on the division of inherited property with other co-inheritors, the agreement on the division of inherited property becomes effective, and rejected Defendant’s assertion contrary thereto.
In light of the relevant legal principles, although the reasoning of the lower court is somewhat inappropriate, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the agreement on the division of inherited property, or by adversely affecting the conclusion of the lower judgment that the said Plaintiffs may exercise their right to claim damages from other co-inheritors on the premise that they legitimately acquired the right to claim damages.
2. The lower court determined as to the claim for damages arising from tort (ground of appeal No. 2) including misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete deliberation, etc. (ground of appeal No. 2) filed a petition for re-adjudication with Seoul High Court Decision 2012Renana 1023 (Seoul High Court Decision 68Da23). However, in the judgment of civil re-adjudication, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the said Plaintiff was dismissed on the grounds that the said Plaintiff was not indicated as the consignee of the Suwon-S
The court below stated the reasons why it is difficult to see that the dismissal judgment affects the claim for damages on the ground that the plaintiff K's claim for damages succeeded to the net AP's claim for damages, since the above plaintiff did not dispute the heir of the net AP's claim for damages.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the claim for damages caused by a tort, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in