추심명령에 의한 추심
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are dismissed or added. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, at the end of the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the phrase “for the purpose of 300 tons” shall be added at the end of the second sentence.
In the end of the fourth 3th sentence of the first instance court, the phrase “for the purpose of 300 tons, for the purpose of 250 tons” shall be added.
The “F” of the judgment of the first instance court is referred to as “G”.
Following the fourth decision of the first instance court, the phrase “I. The Defendant was supplied with a robot system and ancillary devices according to the instant contract on June 12, 2015,” is added to the fourth decision following the second decision of the first instance.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C rescinded the instant First Agreement with the Defendant by false agreement and actually completed the supply and installation of equipment under the instant First Agreement. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, the amount of KRW 63,639,451, and delay damages for KRW 60,000,000, within the scope of the amount of the unpaid equipment.
B. The Defendant asserted that: (a) around May 20, 2015, the Defendant returned KRW 100,000,000, which is part of the down payment paid under the instant first contract with C, from the date of receipt of the instant provisional attachment decision; and (b) rescinded the agreement, the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the equipment is not nonexistent.
3. Determination
A. A provisional seizure on a claim of related legal principles is an order for prohibition of payment to a debtor against a third party debtor, so it cannot be viewed as an act extinguishing or reducing a claim, and such act cannot be set up against a creditor, but it shall not be binding on a debtor's disposal of legal relations which are the cause of the claim.
Therefore, the debtor and the third debtor shall, without any reasonable grounds, be extinguished only with the aim of extinguishing the claim.