추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
1. On June 4, 2019, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the court issued a seizure and collection order as follows (T.S. District Court 2019, other than Daejeon District Court 2019), and the above decision was served on June 11, 2019 on the Defendant (C representative director).
: The amount claimed by the Daejeon District Court Decision 201 A, 2996, which has the power to recommend the execution of the judgment against the plaintiff C: The amount to be seized and collected KRW 80 million: 1/20 of the amount obtained by deducting the benefits, various allowances, and public charges imposed in the form of bonus to be received by the defendant by C (hereinafter referred to as "claim of this case"): omitted (hereinafter referred to as "claim of this case"): The facts that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition: Gap's facts, Gap's evidence, and the purport of all pleadings)
2. Determination on the claim
A. Under the premise that C has the instant claim to the Defendant, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the collection amount according to the above seizure and collection order.
B. In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of the claim is a requisite fact, and the burden of proof is to be borne by the Plaintiff, the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Thus, the Plaintiff must prove the existence of the claim in this case against the Defendant, C, the collection claim of which was the claim, after June 11, 2019, delivered to the Defendant.
Accordingly, according to Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 1, each tax information reply letter, and each financial transaction information reply letter, there is no money that C received from the defendant since 2019, and the defendant also has almost no business activities since 2019 (In full view of the evidence and the whole purport of the arguments mentioned above, although C already established the defendant who was a corporation even though it had already borne a large amount of debt as above, it seems that C had actually avoided collection from the plaintiff while carrying out its own personal business. However, the defendant's business activities had been suspended in 2019 and there was no property under the defendant's name). Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion