logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.11.23 2016가단8202
청구이의
Text

1. As to the Defendant Company C, the period set forth in the letter of recognition and recognition between Daejeon District Court and Daejeon District Court on February 3, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment and compulsory auction 1) The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

(C) On March 25, 2007, upon filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the refund of the purchase price, etc., “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 350,00,000 and 20% interest per annum from December 9, 2006 to the date of complete payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2007 (Seoul District Court Decision 2006Da4833, hereinafter “Plaintiff’s non-litigation judgment”).

(2) On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to commence compulsory sale of real estate as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “real estate No. 1”) owned by C based on the above judgment, and each of the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) was combined with “each of the instant real estate”).

(D) The Daejeon District Court Branch D. B.

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on behalf of C (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gahap5178), and the judgment was rendered to order the cancellation on April 13, 2012. 2) The Defendant appealed against the above judgment, and on March 12, 2013, the judgment was rendered to the effect that “the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Defendant will implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the agreement to C when the execution under the order of seizure issued on March 12, 2002, when the execution under the order of seizure was revoked, the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2009 Tachi1456.”

(Seoul High Court 2012Na2017). The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

3. During the above appellate trial proceeding, C’s representative E appeared as a witness on December 27, 2012 and testified that “C’s obligation is not a statement of its obligation against the Plaintiff.”

The defendant is disputing the plaintiff from E on the same day by the above high court, and the defendant is also the Supreme Court.

arrow