추심금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
3. Determination
A. (1) In the case of a judgment on the claim for rent between June and August 2015 (1), the creditor who collects the claim upon obtaining a collection order from a third party obligor for all creditors who participated in the seizure or distribution as a kind of collection agency according to the authorization of the court of execution, and thus, if the third party obligor performs the obligation to the legitimate collection authority, the effect of the repayment shall be effective on all creditors who are in a relationship with seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da43819, Mar. 27, 2001; 86Da988, Sept. 9, 1986). In addition, if the third party obligor deposits for execution or terminates the seized claim due to set-off or other reasons, the effect thereof shall also affect all creditors who are in a relationship with seizure.
(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and evidence set forth in the above legal principles and evidence set forth in Nos. 4 and 15 (including paper numbers), the Defendant of the non-party company’s monthly rent claim against the non-party company from June to August 2015 was entirely extinguished by the exercise of G’s collection right. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
① G filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim amounting to the unpaid monthly rent until August 2016 of the instant lease agreement, while the claim against the Nonparty Company was at least KRW 503,344,485 (principal KRW 420,000,000 and interest thereon, etc.).
② In the above debt collection lawsuit, the court of first instance on June 29, 2018 held that the Defendant’s debt to Nonparty Company remains in KRW 142,344,443, and that the Defendant’s debt to Nonparty Company remains in KRW 142,344.