Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 24, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The plaintiff in the decision of provisional seizure of claims is the debtor Eul and the defendant is the third debtor, and the defendant is the defendant as the defendant, and the application for provisional seizure of claims (the claim amounting to the above money among the claim claims based on the judgment of the loan claim case No. 2012Gahap170 against the third debtor, Changwon District Court 2015Kadan529 (the claim amounting to 13,100,000 won) was filed with the defendant on June 16, 2015. This was served on the defendant on July 2, 2015.
On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of an executory exemplification of a notarial deed, No. 367 of the Korea-style Law Firm Deed No. 367, issued a ruling of the attachment and collection order (the amount requested KRW 21.5 million) to transfer the provisional seizure under the preceding paragraph to the original attachment by the Changwon District Court 2016TT-522, which was served on the Defendant on February 19, 2016.
The existence of a debt collection claim C was ruled in favor of the Defendant on October 25, 2012 by filing a lawsuit for a loan claim with the Changwon District Court Tongwon Branch 2012Kahap170,000, and “the Defendant shall pay C the amount of KRW 245,00,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from May 9, 2012 to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 20, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,50,000 won, which are stipulated in the collection order, and 15% interest per annum from May 24, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
In this regard, the defendant shall submit evidence Nos. 1 to 8, while he/she has purchased bonds, etc. to offset his/her obligations against C.
Although the defendant's assertion is not clear, it is found that the defendant's argument is settled, ① the claim against D with respect to D (the amount of winning the claim for the agreed amount shall be 30% or 40%) on January 21, 2015.