beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
[Supplementary or additional parts] The three-dimensional one copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was received, and the following is added to “(hereinafter “the collection order of this case”).”
The first instance court's 6th 8th Does to 20th Does as follows.
The Plaintiffs’ Chapter I assumes that the Defendant paid KRW 246,905,531 in aggregate to B, etc. on October 21, 201 and December 27, 2011 under the premise that the collection amount was paid according to the instant collection order. However, when the judgment was rendered in favor of part of the provisional execution declaration on September 23, 201 against the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant paid the provisional execution amount based on the judgment of the first instance court, which ordered payment, not on the basis of the instant collection order, since the Defendant voluntarily paid the collection amount based on the instant provisional execution order, not on the Defendant’s arbitrary payment based on the instant provisional execution order, but on the grounds that the provisional execution was converted from the provisional execution declaration based on the judgment of the first instance court. The Plaintiffs asserted that the above amount was converted to the provisional execution declaration on the basis of the instant settlement recommendation, not on the effect of the payment based on the judgment attached to the collection amount, but on the modification of the provisional execution order to the court below’s judgment on September 25, 200.
Therefore, the defendant B.