추심금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 72,568,068 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 10, 2018 to the date of complete payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff prepared a notarial deed as E and notary public No. 55 in relation to the amount of the credit on the steel accounts delivered to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), and it is recognized that the collection order of this case was delivered to the defendant on Mar. 14, 2018, with regard to KRW 72,568,068 among the agreed amount claims based on the debt repayment agreement as of Nov. 3, 2015 against the defendant as the claim claim, with regard to KRW 72,568,068, out of the agreed amount claims based on the debt repayment agreement as of Nov. 3, 2015, Gwangju District Court Decision 2018 TaT3699, March 12, 2018 (hereinafter "the collection order of this case").
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a collection obligee, KRW 72,568,068 and delay damages therefor (applicable to the rate of 15% per annum from April 10, 2018 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint) to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion concerning the defendant's assertion that since the defendant entered into a special agreement with E to maintain confidentiality and prohibit the assignment of claims in order to prevent the collection or seizure of claims by other creditors, the plaintiff was grossly negligent in having known or failed to know the above special agreement, the claim for the collection of claims in this case is unjustifiable.
Even if there was a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, this only grants the execution creditor the right to collect the claim against the garnishee in the compulsory execution procedure, and this does not mean that the claim which the debtor has against the third debtor is transferred or reverted to the execution creditor.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da54300, Mar. 14, 1997). Moreover, even if the parties have a special agreement on the prohibition of transfer between the parties, a claim may be transferred according to an attachment and assignment order.