추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a creditor of the price for goods against C and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order against the non-party company as the debtor and the defendant as the third debtor, and received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against KRW 105,56,510 out of the construction cost claim against the defendant of the non-party company as the debtor.
Therefore, the defendant should pay the collection amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff who is the collection obligee according to the seizure and collection order of this case.
2. In a lawsuit seeking the amount of collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). On the other hand, remuneration in a contract for work shall be paid simultaneously with the delivery of the completed object, and if the delivery of an object is not required, it shall be paid without delay after the completion of the work (Article 665(1) of the Civil Act); and the contractor who seeks payment of remuneration for the completion of the work is liable to assert and prove the completion of the work.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684 delivered on November 22, 1994, etc.). According to the statement in the Evidence No. 2, the Defendant entered into a construction repair contract with C and Gunsan-si E with the construction cost of KRW 930,000,000 for the building located in C and Gunsan-si.
However, the defendant asserts that C unilaterally suspended the construction, and there is no evidence to prove that C or the non-party company completed the construction.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no ground to deem that there exists a claim for construction cost, which is a seized claim, at the time the seizure and collection order was served on
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.