logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단5224629
양수금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B’s representative C supplied the Defendant with goods such as anti-marketing locks from January 2, 2015, and the amount which was not received is KRW 21,416,450.

B. C entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on July 18, 2016 with respect to the amount of goods to be received by the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notice of assignment of claims as of August 17, 2016 on behalf of C with the content certification as of August 18, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence A No. 1-1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the assertion and judgment of the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the above transfer money, the Defendant asserts that prior to receiving the notification of assignment of claims, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim because it was served with a seizure and collection order in the amount equal to the above transfer amount.

If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(1) In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below (Supreme Court Decision 99Da23888 Decided April 11, 2000), the Defendant served a claim attachment and collection order as of December 23, 2015 with the creditor New Co., Ltd., Ltd., the debtor C, the garnishee, the third debtor, and the defendant, etc. as of December 23, 2015, the claim amount of KRW 650,000,000, as of December 23, 2015, and around that time, the Defendant served the creditor name Co., Ltd, the debtor C, the third debtor, the defendant et al., the claim amount of KRW 873,200,000 on December 23, 2015, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. The conclusion is that the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow