추심금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for the construction cost of KRW 46,00,000 (excluding value-added tax, KRW 5,000,000,000, the remainder of KRW 41,000 on October 5, 2015, and each payment after the completion of the building) and the construction period from October 5, 2015 to October 25, 2015.
B. The Defendant paid C totaling KRW 10,000,000 on October 6, 2015, and KRW 10,000,000 on October 26, 2015, as the instant construction cost, and obtained approval for use on April 25, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, in order to preserve the claim for the amount of KRW 16,220,000 against C on November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order as to the claim for the amount of the remainder of the construction works in accordance with the instant construction works against C by the Seo-gu District Court 2015Kadan58, Seo-gun Branch Court 2015.
(hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”). The instant provisional attachment order was served on November 17, 2015 to the Defendant, who is the garnishee.
Then, on November 18, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the instant order of payment for the goods purchase-price case against the Defendant of the Daegu District Court 2016j. 1, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 16,220,000 by the provisional attachment order against the Defendant of the instant case to the seizure, seized the remainder of KRW 2,320,52, and issued a seizure and collection order to enable the collection of each of the above claims.
(Seoul District Court Branch 2016TTY 7960, hereinafter “instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on November 23, 2016 on the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, C performed the instant construction upon completion of the instant construction, and the Defendant.