(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.01.18 2017가단60149

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.01.18 2017가단60149

배당이의 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for a payment order with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); (b) received an order to pay KRW 54.2 million to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016; and (c) the said payment order became final and conclusive on February 5, 2016.

B. On May 31, 2016, Nonparty Company entered into a contract with the Defendant on the transfer of the claim in the separate sheet against Nonparty Company E (hereinafter “instant claim”).

(hereinafter “instant assignment contract”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order (Ulsan District Court 2016 other bond 7995) regarding the instant claim with regard to the foregoing payment order as the execution bond, and issued a seizure and collection order on August 4, 2016.

E Co., Ltd., the debtor of the instant claim, deposited KRW 31,340,40 among the instant claims on the grounds of competition of claims, and the distribution schedule stating that the amount of KRW 31,277,56 to be distributed to the Defendant, the assignee of the instant claim, was drafted on June 26, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of the instant claim by the non-party company to the Defendant in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, who is another creditor of the non-party company, so the assignment of the instant claim should be revoked, and that the said distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the assignment contract of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since the claim of this case was transferred to obtain the repayment of the claim against the non-party company.

B. The obligee’s right to seek reimbursement of an obligation is a natural exercise of the obligee’s right, and there is another obligee.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.07 2015가단5231026

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.02.04 2014가단33453

-울산지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가단20256

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.02.20 2013가합2277

-광주지방법원 2021.01.15 2020가단533568