추심금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 104,70,189 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 25, 2014 to the day of full payment.
1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim
A. A. A. B.D. (hereinafter “A.D. Construction”) paid KRW 3,129,00,000 for the instant construction project from the Defendant around September 2012 to KRW 3,129,00,00 for the construction cost of the instant construction project among the main complex construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) and completed the instant construction project on or around June 2013; the Plaintiff’s judgment that became final and conclusive for the Plaintiff’s Government-Funded District Court Decision 2014A. 7688 goods price as its executive title; the Defendant was the obligor and the Defendant as the third obligor, and the Defendant was issued a collection order regarding KRW 104,70,189 among the instant construction price claims; and the Defendant’s submission of the aforementioned collection order to the Defendant on or around July 1, 2014 as the title of the final and conclusive judgment on the purchase price of goods; or the Defendant’s submission of the evidence and collection order to the Defendant on July 21, 2014.
B. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the above KRW 104,700,189 to the plaintiff who acquired the collection right of KRW 104,70,189 out of the claim for construction price of this case under the above seizure and collection order.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that there is no construction price payable to the Plaintiff, as the instant construction price was paid in full by paying the last construction price to the construction company at around October 2014.
B. We examine the defendant's assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and even according to the defendant's argument, the defendant paid part of the construction cost attached to the Lee Construction even after receiving the above claim attachment and collection order, and the payment of the construction cost cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the execution creditor. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the defendant's above KRW 104,70,189 and objection is raised against the plaintiff.