beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.12 2017가단4300

전부금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 3, 2015, 2015, EW ENG VINM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EW ENG VINM Co., Ltd.”) entered into a contract with a company that receives a contract for the installation of a plant for the installation of a new metal fluort aluminium (hereinafter “instant contract”) and an environmental facility (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On November 3, 2015, Nonparty Company entered into a contract with the Vietnam of the new metal (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”) under which the Nonparty Company would supply the goods of the instant plant’s aluminium fluium fluor facilities and environmental facilities to the Vietnam of the new metal (hereinafter “instant goods supply contract”).

C. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Incheon District Court for a payment order against the non-party corporation Ebluenna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-party corporation”) to pay the price for the goods under the Incheon District Court No. 2016 tea7547, and the above court issued a payment order to the effect that “the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from December 1, 2016 to the day of full payment and the expenses for demand procedure.”

Based on the executory exemplification of the above payment order, the Plaintiff applied for the attachment and assignment order of claims against the Defendant of the non-party company as the Incheon District Court 2017TTT 4160, and on February 27, 2017, the above court issued the attachment and assignment order of claims against it. The above original ruling was served on the Defendant on March 3, 2017, and became final and conclusive on April 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the non-party company is in accordance with the contract for the supply of the goods in this case, the non-party company totaled 358,000.