beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.13 2015가단772

추심금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,625,510 as well as 20% per annum from February 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff had a debt equivalent to KRW 25,425,510 with the private company “B,” but transferred the said money to the Defendant bank account in the name of D in which the Plaintiff had engaged in a business in the name of “C,” due to mistake, even though it transferred the money to the company “B” on September 30, 2014.

On the same day, the plaintiff notified the defendant of the remittance and the approval of D, and requested the return of the amount of remittance by mistake, but the defendant rejected it.

On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a promissory note with a face value of 25,425,510 won in order to receive the amount remitted by mistake. Based on the original copy of the notarial deed of a promissory note, the Plaintiff: (a) as a claim for the claim of KRW 25,625,510 against D; (b) as a claim for the deposit claim against D; (c) filed an application for a seizure and collection order of the amount until the claim amount among the claim for the claim for the refund of deposit against D (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”); (d) on December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order of the claim with the Goyang Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2014TT 16478; and (e) on December 8, 2014, the said ruling was served on the Defendant on December 8, 2014.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, each statement in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the court below held that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 25,625,510 won collected and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 1, 2015 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.

On the judgment of the defendant's counterclaim, the defendant set off the loans against D with the deposit claim of this case as an automatic claim, and the deposit claim of this case has already been made within the extent of equal amount.