추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order against Nonparty C’s lease deposit against Nonparty C by Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014TTTT14786, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 85 million and the delay damages.
2. Determination
A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1 and 3, and the fact-finding results and the purport of the whole pleadings of this court with respect to the D community service center of this court, the plaintiff received a claim seizure and collection order with respect to the claim to return the lease deposit on the premise of the existence of the lease agreement between Eul and the defendant on December 12, 2013, under the premise that the lease agreement exists between Gangseo-gu and the defendant on December 12, 2013, Eul received a claim seizure and collection order with respect to the claim to return the lease deposit, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24050, Dec. 12, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24850, Oct. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24205, Oct. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24205, Aug. 30, 2014>
B. The above facts and the Plaintiff presumed, without confirmation as to C’s conclusion of the lease contract, that C owns the claim for the return of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff based on C’s resident registration, and in light of the circumstances that C had been subject to the above claim seizure and collection order, it cannot be deemed that C has the claim for the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 85 million to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the payment of the lease deposit on the premise that C had the claim for the return of
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.