beta
Text
Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the court of first instance 7, 13 through 8, 3, 3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 4, 5, 5, 7
[Supplementary Use]
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 99,00,000 to Nonparty Company prior to September 15, 2017, for which the provisional seizure order of this case was served on or before the Defendant was served on or before September 15, 2017 (i.e., KRW 66,00,000 on May 12, 2017) is a valid repayment of KRW 33,00,000 on July 6, 2017. Therefore, at the time of delivery of the provisional seizure order of this case, the Defendant’s payment of the remainder of the construction payment to Nonparty Company is KRW 209,00,000 (construction payment of KRW 308,00,000 on the agreement - KRW 99,00,000).
However, as seen above, the owner G paid 198,00,000 won directly to the non-party company on behalf of the defendant on October 27, 2017, after delivering the provisional seizure order of this case to the defendant. As such, the construction price of the non-party company against the defendant remains KRW 11,00,000 (=209,000,000 - 198,000,000).
However, with respect to the amount in conflict with the purpose of preserving the claim amount of KRW 90,180,000 in aggregate of the claim amount of the provisional seizure order of this case (i.e., Plaintiff A 49,000,000 won for Plaintiff C17,180,000 for Plaintiff C17,180,000), the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiffs, the obligee, by payment in G, with the above repayment in G.
Ultimately, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Defendant’s remainder debt of the Corporation against the non-party company still remains at KRW 79,180,000,00, which is in conflict with the purpose of preserving the provisional seizure order of this case among the amount of the Defendant’s unpaid debt of KRW 11,00,000, and the amount of the Defendant’s outstanding debt of KRW 79,180,000, which is in conflict with the purpose of preserving the provisional seizure order of this case (i.e., KRW 90,180,000, the amount of the provisional seizure claim of KRW 11,000,000,000).
On the other hand, on October 23, 2018, the plaintiffs were 15,648.