Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The basic facts acknowledged by this court are as stated in the “1. Basic facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 9 through 4, 10). Thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that, prior to the determination of the facts as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12 and the fact-finding results on the case of this court, it is reasonable to view that, pursuant to Article 5(2) and (3) of the instant collection order, the defendant, who is the debtor of the instant collection order, has at least KRW 278,082,192 for the defendant, who is the third debtor, at least KRW 278,082,192 for the execution cost.
The defendant's assertion against this is not acceptable.
① Article 5(2) of the Convention provides for the following matters: (a) under the premise that the case has a claim equivalent to the execution cost incurred up to that time against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) at the time of the conclusion of the Convention, the Massferir shall succeed to the status of the creditor.
Thus, the Masferferir shall be deemed to be the creditor status of the claim of this case as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, and the “Convention on Business Partnership” which was concluded between the Defendant and the Kti was scheduled to enter into this contract later, or the mere fact that the “U-APT Construction Contract” was not entered into between the Defendant and the Masferferir, after the conclusion of the instant agreement, does not necessarily mean that the Masti did not have created the instant claim against the Masferir.
Even based on the result of the inquiry into the case by this court, it is clear that the cooperation companies have disbursed all the expenses related to U-APT construction according to the conclusion of the "Agreement on Business Partnership". This cost is ultimately the defendant's burden.
② On the other hand, this Court's case is involved.