추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition [based on recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, and Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply);
(2) Each entry, the inquiry results of this court's inquiry into the DBB and the purport of the entire pleadings
A. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with DBS ABS ABS A-lock Symke Symke (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) under which the Defendant entered into a contract with D to install the aforesaid construction work, and entered into a subcontract with E on August 26, 2014 by setting the price of the said construction work up to KRW 2.96 billion and the deadline up to December 25, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).
B. Upon completion of the above installation work on March 30, 2015, the Defendant reserved the payment of KRW 296,000,000 out of the price under the pretext of E and liquidated damages for delay on August 19, 2015, and subsequently, concluded an agreement with the Nonparty Company to pay the said money when it renounces its claim for liquidated damages against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Since then, the Defendant paid the remainder amount of KRW 2.664 billion = 2.96 billion to E in total.296,00 won - 296,000 won.
C. E filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the unpaid claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) with the Suwon District Court 2016Kahap94 and was partly winning judgment in the first instance trial on June 15, 2017.
However, on October 23, 2017, the Seoul High Court 2017Na2034385, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) for the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 227,489,354 out of the judgment amount or adjustment amount to be paid based on the above appellate case against the Defendant E, as Seoul High Court 2017Na20385, Oct. 23, 2017, and the said order was served on the Defendant on October 26, 2017.
E. Accordingly, on January 25, 2018, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on the ground that E loses its qualification as a party in accordance with the instant collection order, and the judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.
2. The cause of the action.