추심금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 228,679,452 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff Company C (Representative D; hereinafter “C”)
(C) On May 1, 2015, “C and E jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 220 million per annum from March 25, 2015 to the date of full payment” filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the loan amounting to KRW 22 million (this Court Decision 2015Da1321, and 1, 2015, “C and E jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22 million per annum from March 25, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the above decision was rendered.
5. 22. A final and conclusive date.
2) At the time of May 4, 2012, C entered into a reconstruction project implementation agency contract with H, the manager of the FG Housing Reconstruction Management Group, the Defendant’s telegraph, and the FG merchant, Gangnam-gu I and J, and acquired the instant service payment claim amounting to at least 25 million won against the reconstruction management body, and thereafter, “FG Housing Reconstruction Management Body” completed the registration to the Defendant (B Co., Ltd.) on July 12, 2013, and H took office as the representative director. 3) On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the right to preserve the loan principal and interest amounting to KRW 228,679,452 based on the said final judgment, was subject to the seizure and collection order for the service payment claim against the “Rebuilding Management Body” (Seoul District Court Decision 2015TTTTTTTE).
6. 26. The defendant, who is the garnishee, was served.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 228,679,452 to the plaintiff, who is the collection authority for the service payment claim of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The Defendant’s assertion was newly concluded on May 4, 2012 between the Defendant and the Desired City Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Voluntary City”), and thus, the obligee of the instant service payment claim is not C.