beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015TTT 52075, the Plaintiff, as the obligor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, the claim amounting to KRW 935,841,095, and the notary public against C, as to the Defendant on the No. 450 on the No. 450 on the No. 2015 on the No. 2015 on the No. 450 on the No. 2015 on the ground of the claim, issued a claim seizure and collection order against the Defendant on the No. 4
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 300 million, which the plaintiff seeks as part of the claim, and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in paragraph (1), as indicated in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff: (a) made the obligor and the Defendant as the garnishee under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015TTTT 52075, Nov. 6, 2015; and (b) received a seizure and collection order of the monetary claims stated in the said notarial deed as KRW 935,841,095; and (c) around that time, the above seizure and collection order became final; (b) the Defendant and C bears the monetary claims of KRW 1.6 billion against C with respect to active payments; and (c) if the Defendant and the Defendant fail to perform this order, a notary public may not admit that there is no objection even if compulsory execution was carried out; and (d) made a notarial deed No. 450, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed”).
B. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the existence of the above active loan payment liability solely on the basis of the results of the submission of financial transaction information by health team, Gap evidence No. 3, KSB, KSB bank, new banks, IBK bank, and IBK bank as to whether the defendant's above active loan payment liability exists, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness C’s testimony, each of the above financial transaction information submission results, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is supplied with active services from “D” for a long time.