채무부존재확인
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on this part of the facts admitted is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to adding the following matters, and thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
G. Pursuant to the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act on October 8, 2018, the head of the tax office may collect monetary claims that the Defendant would receive from the Plaintiff pursuant to the judgment of the instant case (hereinafter “instant monetary claims”).
The amount up to KRW 173,405,450 among them was seized, and on October 19, 2018, a written request for collection was served to the Plaintiff to pay the amount of the instant judgment to the Defendant by October 19, 2018. (h) On October 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 85,000,000, which is a part of the judgment amount of the first instance court on October 17, 2018 upon the request for collection of the tax office. Accordingly, the first instance court’s judgment remains at the rate of KRW 6% per annum from August 21, 2016 to October 21, 2018, each of subparagraph 15% per annum from the date following the date of the first instance court’s decision and each of subparagraph 21 to 24% per annum from the date of the full payment.
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the counterclaim against the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff: (a) ex officio, the obligee subject to a collection order, if any, may exercise on behalf of the debtor all the rights necessary for the collection of the claim; and (b) as a result, the obligor, after the collection order, loses the right to perform a lawsuit against the third obligor following the forfeiture of the right to perform a lawsuit for the performance of the claim subject to seizure, as well as the standing to file a lawsuit for confirmation against the third obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200; 201Da5405, Nov. 10, 201; and (c) a third obligor filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the claims subject to seizure.