beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and C shall not exceed 343,179,647 Won within the scope of the property inherited from the network A, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 20, 2008, the net A, Defendant D, E, and F (hereinafter “Defendant 4”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages relating to the “Gyang Life incident.” The first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap6691) and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2009Na24479) dismissed Defendant 4’s claim on the ground of the expiration of the extinctive prescription, but the appellate court (Supreme Court 2009Da66969) reversed and remanded part of the lower judgment on September 8, 2011 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s defense of extinctive prescription constitutes abuse of rights.
B. On April 27, 2012, the first instance court (Seoul High Court 201Na74842) sentenced that “the Plaintiff shall pay the net A 900,272,726 won, Defendant D 1,825,909,087 won, Defendant E 1,635,000,000 won, Defendant F 413,648,088 won, and each of the above amounts to Defendant F 413,648,08 won, and 5% per annum from April 20, 2012 to April 27, 2012; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”
C. In filing an appeal against the above judgment, on May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 4,829,773,140, which is equivalent to the total amount of the judgment rendered as follows, to Defendant 4.
(Units: 18,813,69,653,813,813,69,649,758,7564,786,407,874,829,773,737,460,460 1,846,919,547 E 1,635,000 18,813,699 1,653,813,699,648,084,759,786418,407,874,874,773,1488
D. However, on May 29, 2014, the court of final appeal on the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da43638) rendered a judgment that reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the judgment of the court below was remarkably erroneous in calculating consolation money.
E. The second instance court (Seoul High Court 2014Na28178) returned on May 29, 2015: 224,272,726 won to the network A; 467,909,087 won to the Defendant D; 428,00,000 won to the Defendant E; 93,106,152 won to the Defendant F; 5% per annum from April 29, 2015 to May 29, 2015; and