손해배상(기) 청구의 소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is see the Plaintiff’s written application for change of the lawsuit on September 4, 2020. The Plaintiff asserted in the instant complaint that the Defendant and C concealed the claim for refund of the leased deposit for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and the cause of the claim was changed after the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant.
As of January 22, 2008, the Plaintiff is a creditor who received payment orders (the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2008 to the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the following day to the service date of the authentic copy of the payment order, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of the complete payment) in the loan claim case No. 2008 tea 554 of the Seoul Central District Court (30,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 22, 2007 to the day of full payment).
On August 16, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order under the Suwon District Court 2008Da554, Seoul Central District Court 2008Da554, and the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order under the Suwon District Court 2016, 2016, and 13853, and was served on D on September 6, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seized KRW 30,000,000, out of the lessee’s lease deposit return claims against D.
In this regard, around April 2015, C transferred the name of the lessee to D in relation to the above compulsory execution to the Defendant, who is his spouse, C (the lessor D’s assertion), and the Plaintiff received the above bond seizure and collection order without gathering the above facts.
On April 20, 2017, after the effect of the seizure and collection order of the above bonds, the defendant received KRW 80,000,000 from D as the refund of the lease deposit.
1) As above, the Defendant received KRW 80,000,00 after the claim for the return of the lease deposit against C with C was seized, the said money was received without any reason and was unjust.