208Na7734 Sales Price

1. KimO (**************************** (*)** (*).

Ulsan District Court: Ulsan District Court

7OR)************************* (*)

Ulsan District Court: Ulsan District Court

************************* (*)

Kim Jong-si

OE)*************************** (*)

Ulsan East-gu District

‘O)**************************** (*)

Busan Seo-gu

9 & 00)************************* (*)

Daegu Suwon-gu

*********************** (*)

Busan Seo-gu

************************* (*)

Busan East-gu

*****************

Busan High-gu

10. Liquor00 (****)

Busan High-gu

******************

Busan Seo-gu

12. Kim Jong-tae (***********************))

Busan Seo-gu

13. Red00 (****************************** (*)

Ulsan-gu

************************* (*)

Busan Young-gu

15. △△;

Jeju

9L ▽VE)************************* (*)

Ulsan Central District;

*********************** (*)

Busan Southern-gu

******************* (*)

Busan East-gu

************************ (*)

Busan East-gu

20.Gamboo (****************))

Busan Soft-gu

******************)

Ulsan-dong District

22. MoO (************************))

Busan Young-gu

23. Kim Jong-▽▽ (***********************))

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

24. Written (*********************************))*****)

Busan Western

25. High 00 (************************))

Busan Young-gu

26. Ma00 (************************))

Busan Shipping Daegu

27. 김▷ ▷ ( * * * * * * - * * * * * * * )

Busan Shipping Daegu

[Judgment of the court below]

00 Enterprises

Daejeon Seo-gu

대표자 청산인 ★★★

Ulsan District Court Decision 2007Gahap39 Decided April 23, 2008

December 17, 2008

January 14, 2009

1. The part against the plaintiffs of the money that orders payment under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. 피고는 원고 김00에게 43, 500, 000원, 원고 천00에게 50, 000, 000원, 원고 김소◇ 에게 40, 000, 000원, 원고 변00에게 139, 000, 000원, 원고 한OO에게 20, 000, 000원, 원고 정00에게 20, 000, 000원, 원고 이00에게 115, 000, 000원, 원고 이 에게 86, 400, 000원, 원고 황00에게 20, 000, 000원, 원고 주00에게 30, 000, 000원, 원고 황소에게 20, 000, 000원, 원고 김□□에게 70, 000, 000원, 원고 홍00에게 25, 000, 000원, 원고 한소에게 25, 000, 000원, 원고 이□□에게 25, 000, 000원, 원고 김△△에게 80, 000, 000원, 원고 박OO에게 15, 000, 000원, 원고 최00에게 15, 000, 000원, 원고 서OO에게 15, 000, 000원, 원고 박○○에게 15, 000, 000원, 원고 이△△에게 50, 000, 000원, 원고 강00에게 50, 000, 000원, 원고 김▽▽에게 139, 300, 000원, 원고서 에게 70, 000, 000원, 원고 고00에게 50, 000, 000원, 원고 임OO에게 50, 000, 000원, 원고 김▷▷에게 100, 000, 000원 및 위 각 돈에 대하여 2007. 1. 11. 부터 2009 .

1. To the 14.14., 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

4. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the judgment against the plaintiff Kim 00, 43, 500, 000 won, and the plaintiff Cho O.

50,000,000 won, 40,000,000 won, 139,000,000 won, 130,000 won, 1300 won, 000 won, and the Plaintiff

20,000,000 won for 20,000 for 10,000 for 115,000 for 110,000 for 100,000 for 115,000 for 00;

Plaintiff 86, 400, 000, and Yellow 00, Plaintiff 20,000, and Plaintiff 00

30,000,000 won, 20,000 won, 000 won, 70,000 won, 000 won, 70,000 won, 000 won, and Plaintiff Hong-ri

25,000,000 won for 00, and 25,000,000 won for 10,000 for 10,000 for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 for 10,000

Plaintiff Kim △△△, 80,000,000, and Plaintiff 15,000,000, and Plaintiff 100, respectively, to Plaintiff Kim △△△,

15,00,000 won, Plaintiff 15,000,000 won, Plaintiff 15,000,000 won, Plaintiff 15,000,000 won, and Plaintiff 15,000

△△△△ KRW 50,00,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 000, and KRW 139,300,00, and KRW 00,00 to Plaintiff △△△, respectively;

Plaintiff 70,00,000 won, Plaintiff 50,000 won, Plaintiff 100, and Plaintiff 10O

50, 000, 000원, 원고 김▷▷에게 100, 000, 000원 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 이 사건 소장

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day after service to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is as follows: "No. 23-1, No. 25-2" is added to "No. 25-1, No. 23-2 of "No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and "No. 9-2" is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following to No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. The Plaintiffs, including the conclusion of the sales contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, concluded the instant prior investment sales contract with the Defendant for the facility site in the project district, or succeeded to the status of the buyers, as shown in the attached Table, and the Plaintiffs reported to the Defendant as a prior investor in 200.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, when the defendant establishes and notifies the reorganization plan for prior investors to the Han Heavy Industries in accordance with the special agreement, the rights of the plaintiffs against the defendant were changed to the claim for return of cash. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount of each claim and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion (1)

The defendant alleged that the statute of limitations has expired since the last day of 2000 when the plaintiff filed a claim for return of each of the above actions (2) and the lawsuit of this case was filed on January 2, 2007 (the second day).

On December 31, 2005, when five years have elapsed since the last day of 2000 when the plaintiffs reported and exercised their respective rights to request the return of cash, the period of extinctive prescription has expired since the plaintiffs' right to request the return of cash is a commercial claim since the plaintiffs' right to request the return of cash was all generated from commercial activities under Article 3 of the Commercial Act. The rights of the plaintiffs' right to request the return of cash are all over five years since the above right to request the return of cash is a commercial claim.

However, the exercise of the obligor's right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our civil law. Thus, where there are special circumstances, such as the obligor's act of making it impossible or remarkably difficult for the obligee to exercise the obligee's right or interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, or of making such an act unnecessary, or objectively obstructing the obligee from exercising its right, or the obligor's act of not using the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations, or where there are circumstances, such as making the obligee trust, or making the obligee receive the repayment of the obligation under the same conditions as the need to protect the obligee, etc., and the obligor's refusal to perform the obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair, it cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da18228, Sept. 25, 200

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 24 and 25-2, according to the purport of the whole statements and arguments, the defendant is entitled to make a statement on September 9, 1997.

7. The defendant liquidator was dissolved with the order of dissolution No. 92m153 at Busan District Court. Under the liquidation procedure, since 1999 to 200, the defendant liquidator notified bond holders of the report of claim pursuant to Article 535 of the Commercial Act. Accordingly, the plaintiffs completed the report of claim as stated in the separate sheet by the end of February 200. Accordingly, the defendant prepared the defendant's debt status list with the defendant's creditors including the plaintiffs in Daejeon District Court on February 2, 2000 and reported it with the material upon receipt of the report of claim. Since the defendant's liquidator changed his claim on January 9, 2006, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the defendant's allegation that the extinctive prescription period should not be reported again against the defendant's reliance on the above reliance on the principle of extinctive prescription as to the plaintiff's claim that was not reported on the expiration of the period of extinctive prescription against the plaintiff's claim that was not reported on the expiration of the period of extinctive prescription.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, which is the date following the delivery date of the complaint of this case pursuant to the plaintiffs' claim against each of the above money and each of the above money, as requested by the plaintiffs, from January 11, 2007, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case, until January 14, 2009, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope of rights and obligations or the existence of the above money. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is accepted within the above recognition scope and it is without merit, and all of the remaining claims are dismissed. The defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed, and all of the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge

Judge Lee Jin-soo

Judges Jeon Soo-hwan

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.