추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Fact-finding [Grounds for Recognition] A. 1 and 2 are without dispute, each entry in the evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings (1) On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order for the following claims with the amount of KRW 36,00,000 by the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Kadan544, Oct. 10, 2016, with the creditor, debtor-debtor A. 201Kadan5444, and the provisional attachment order was served on the Defendant.
(2) On March 6, 2017, the Defendant received the claim amounting to 37,805,000 won (the principal amounting to 36,00,000,000 won and damages calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from November 23, 2016 to February 17, 2017) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the case of construction cost (No. 2016,440) against the Incheon District Court Decision No. 2016,Da440 on March 6, 2017, with the claim amounting to 37,805,00 won (the remainder 1,305,000 won) from the Incheon District Court Decision No. 2017, Nov. 23, 2016 to the provisional seizure order of claim No. 2016,300,000 won, and the original copy was served to the Defendant.
2. Claim and Judgment (1) Summary of Claim: The Defendant claimed the payment of the collection amount according to the collection order of this case, and the Defendant did not specify the subject or scope of the seizure and collection order of this case, and it did not have any effect, and even if the collection order of this case concerns the second and third sites of the draft of the collection order of this case, the unpaid construction cost does not exist, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.
(2) ▷관련법리 압류 및 추심명령의 목적인 채권의 표시는 제3채무자로 하여금 채무자의 다른 채권과 구별할 수 있을 정도로 기재되어 그 동일성의 인식을 저해할 정도에 이르지 아니한 이상 그 압류 및 추심명령은 유효하다
(See Supreme Court Decisions 65Da1699 Decided October 26, 1965, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da89036 Decided April 28, 201, etc.).