추심금
1. The plaintiff's rehabilitation debtor B shall confirm that the rehabilitation claim for the plaintiff's rehabilitation debtor B is KRW 33,825,331;
2. The plaintiff.
1. Basic facts (i) The Plaintiff has 86,150,934 won and delay damages claims against Nonparty D based on the final and conclusive judgment in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5060258 (hereinafter “this judgment”). D had registered its trade name on April 3, 2015 from the business chain B, such as Internet education service, telephone and fishery (former trade name “Co. E”; hereinafter “B”) to the business chain B, including the Internet education service, telephone and fishery, to the end of March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff served as the representative director from April 11, 2007 to March 30, 2015, and thereafter worked as an internal director.
On July 8, 2014, July 2014, 2014, which was the date of determining the claim amount against the defendant for the case number Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court, the collection order No. 1 of the defendant 2014TT 858 46,292,205 won, which was issued on July 27, 2014, the second collection order No. 2015, 743 97,198,211 won, which was issued on January 21, 2015, the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order on the wage claims against D based on the original copy of the original judgment with executory power against D, on two occasions.
On October 23, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court commenced the rehabilitation procedure for B as the administrator on October 23, 2015 and considered D as the administrator. On December 18, 2015, the defendant was appointed as administrator.
x) The Plaintiff reported the amount of the collection bond to KRW 97,198,211 and interest as the rehabilitation claim within the inspection period, but D at the time, which had the administrator, raised an objection to the whole amount of the claim.
Accordingly, on December 18, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to this court a written application for resumption of proceedings, stating that “D was appointed as a custodian in B after the rehabilitation procedure commenced,” within one month from the end of the period of inspection of the said rehabilitation procedure ( November 27, 2015), and stated at the first date for pleading.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 8, purport of whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim is the Plaintiff’s primary claim, and B paid benefits after July 8, 2014 to D, who is the employee, after being served with the first collection order, but this cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.