beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's request against the defendant A shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff and defendant Yangyang Construction Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The remaining Defendants except the Plaintiff and Defendant Yangyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Yangyang Construction”) are creditors of Defendant Yangyang Construction.
B. Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. had a claim for the construction cost against Daeyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dayang Construction”) on April 9, 2013, transferred KRW 109,868,736 to the Plaintiff on April 9, 2013, and the said assignment of claim based on the content certification reached a substitute construction on July 8, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of claims of this case”) C.
The remaining Defendants, except for Defendant Yangyang Construction, executed the provisional seizure or collection order on each of the above construction claims against Defendant Yangyang Construction with the provisional seizure or collection order on each of the above construction claims. The service date of each of the provisional seizure or seizure and collection order is as stated in the separate sheet. As such, the provisional seizure order of Defendant A was served on Taeyang Construction on May 30, 2013 prior to the notification of the above assignment of claims. The remaining Defendants’ provisional seizure or seizure and collection order of the said claims were served on Taeyang Construction after the notification of the above assignment of claims.
Taeyang Construction deposited KRW 37,542,433 of the construction cost obligation to be paid to Defendant Hoyang Construction on April 1, 2014, 2014, for reasons of the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and the latter part of Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. On April 15, 2015, deposit KRW 902,140 of the remainder of the construction cost under the said court No. 1410 of the said court’s 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant deposits”). [Grounds for recognition] As to Defendant Soyang Construction CDF, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Defendant Soyang Construction CDA pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's notification of assignment of claim of this case is the decision of provisional seizure of claim by defendant A.