beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가합55922

승계집행문부여이의

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B, C, D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “B, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Treatment Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Automobile Sales”) on the claim for wage, etc. under the Incheon District Court 2010Gahap22084. The said court rendered a judgment in favor of all of the aforementioned judgment on January 20, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”). (b)

On October 18, 2009, Daewoo Motor Sales (hereinafter referred to as the “The Defendant”) lent KRW 600,000,000 to the Defendant on October 19, 2010.

(2) On February 15, 201, 201, based on the executory exemplification of the instant final judgment, B, etc. (hereinafter “instant loan”). Around February 15, 201, the Incheon District Court (201TT 224,576,594 won in total, including the Defendant and the third obligor, issued a seizure and collection order against the said KRW 224,576,594 out of the loan claim 60,00,000,000, and the said original of the instant decision was served on the Defendant on February 18, 2011 and became final and conclusive thereafter.

C. On February 28, 2011, I transferred the claim of KRW 340,678,292 to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim on March 10, 201. On March 10, 2011, I expressed the Defendant’s intent of offset on the same day. On July 6, 2011, the Defendant deposited KRW 259,321,708 on the ground of seizure.

B, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as the Incheon District Court 201Gahap4939, the said court rendered a partial favorable judgment against B, etc. on September 23, 2011, and the amount cited in the above winning judgment was received from the Defendant through provisional execution.

However, from the Seoul High Court case No. 2011Na83891 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant collection lawsuit”), the appellate court, on June 11, 2012, “the settlement recommendation decision containing the following contents is below.”