유체동산인도
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff operates B as a travel intermediary business, and the Defendant is developing and supplying software, etc.
B. On March 30, 2009, the Plaintiff would be supplied with the telephone/fax reservation system (hereinafter “instant system”) from the Defendant to KRW 25.5 million (value added tax). On April 8, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.65 million out of the price to the Defendant.
C. Although the Defendant developed the instant system and established it in the Plaintiff’s business office, the phenomenon that the Plaintiff could not work normally due to the overworking of the telecommunications company, which was provided by the Plaintiff, was repeated.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover KRW 7.650,00 (Seoul Central District Court 2009da259660). The defendant filed a lawsuit to seek the payment of KRW 19,635,00 (Seoul Central District Court 2009da259677) as a counterclaim. On April 29, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and rendered a judgment to fully accept the defendant's counterclaim claim (the claim amount: KRW 19,635,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 30, 2010 to the date of full payment).
The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the above judgment, filed an appeal and final appeal, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 19, 201 and October 28, 201 by the successive dismissal of the appeal and final appeal.
E. On June 9, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 6,659,761 from the new bank upon receipt of the claim attachment and collection order under Daegu District Court racing-Support 2010, 1441, and received KRW 6,659,761 from the new bank upon the provisional execution based on the above judgment of the first instance court. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 15,000,000 from the Seoul Central District Court for the suspension of compulsory execution of the said judgment.
F. The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Kao381, and the Seoul Central District Court on June 19, 2012.