beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.07.19 2018나2046989

지체상금등

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the succession participation by this court, is modified as follows.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except in the following cases, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

Part IV: The following shall be added to the table below:

“The succeeding intervenor.” As to the money that the Defendant Company would receive from the Plaintiff by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018TTTT119543 on December 4, 2018, until KRW 196,230,948, out of the money that the Plaintiff would receive by the judgment on the part concerning the counterclaim of this case, the succeeding intervenor’s seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

) Upon receipt of the above order of seizure and collection, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the Plaintiff, who is the garnishee on December 10, 2018, and became final and conclusive around that time."

2. The parties' assertion

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 4 to No. 5) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (b) this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Part 5: The following shall be added at the end of the seventh line:

“A plaintiff shall claim the payment of the above amount as the principal lawsuit against the defendant company and shall offset the claim equivalent to the above amount which the defendant company has against the defendant company by the automatic claim against the plaintiff of the defendant company.”

B. A summary of the Defendant Company and the Intervenor’s assertion 1) As such, the Defendant Company was obligated to pay KRW 273,597,898 to the Defendant Company as additional construction cost. In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,463,00,000 to the Defendant Company as the construction cost of the instant case, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 242,00,000 (= KRW 1,705,000), which is unpaid, out of the construction cost of the instant case (= KRW 1,705,000) - KRW 1,463,00,000.

Defendant Company is the Plaintiff.