(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.05.18 2015가단75004

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.05.18 2015가단75004

전부금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) on December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the attachment and assignment order of KRW 154,000,000 against C on the ground of an executory notarial deed No. 364, 2014 with respect to C’s claim for the return of down payment to the Defendant; (b) on December 15, 2014, upon receipt of an order for the attachment and assignment order of claims under the head of Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch Branch 2014TTT16317; and (c) on December 17, 2014, the attachment and assignment order of the said claims were served on the Defendant on December 17, 2014 (the date indicated in the complaint appears to be written in writing); (d) the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said amount of KRW 154,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

2. In the judgment, the existence of the entire claim in the lawsuit for full payment is the requisite fact and the burden of proof is the plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the existence of the claim for the return of the down payment amount of KRW 154,00,000 against the defendant, who is the entire claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (the Plaintiff conspired with the Defendant to evade the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and prepared a confirmation and waiver of right (Evidence No. 2) to the Defendant, and the Defendant asserted to the effect that C applied for a payment order against C and received the payment order (Evidence No. 6) under the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 tea2417 even though C is not the subject of compensation for damages. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion) and the purport of the whole arguments, it is reasonable to deem that C’s claim for the return of down payment amount of KRW 154,00,000 against the Defendant, all of which are the entire claim amount, does not exist.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, based on the premise that C's claim for the return of down payment of KRW 154,000,000 against the defendant, which is the entire claim.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.12 2015가단116346 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단22840

-부산지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나6286

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가단152039

-대전지방법원 2015.04.15 2014가합105640