(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.18 2015가단51686

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.18 2015가단51686

추심금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for seizure and collection of the deposit claims against B financial institutions, including deposit claims of B, KRW 40,000,000 against the Defendant in Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 tea 9188, based on the executory exemplification of the debt collection order case of B, Cheongju District Court 2014TT, which included the deposit claims of B, KRW 40,000,000. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

B. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant served with a collection order for the instant seizure and collection, and filed an appeal against the instant seizure and collection order under the Cheongju District Court 2014Ra128.

C. On March 17, 2016, the lower court revoked the instant attachment and collection order and dismissed the Plaintiff’s above claim attachment and collection request on the grounds that, as B filed an objection to the instant attachment and collection order, which served as the basis of the instant collection and collection order, the said payment order was later referred to the said Seoul Eastern District Court 2013j9188 and pending a lawsuit, and thus, the said order cannot become a valid title of execution. At that time, the attachment of the said deposit claim against B was revoked pursuant to the said order of the appellate court.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed a reappeal against the above decision of the appellate court, but the plaintiff's reappeal was dismissed.

【Court of Grounds for Recognition】 The significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection amount to the Defendant, the garnishee, based on the instant seizure and collection order, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and that the Plaintiff’s claim was cancelled due to the cancellation of the attachment of the deposit claim against the Defendant B.

B. We examine the defendant's above assertion as a defense before the merits of this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.22 2016가단29923

-대법원 2011. 4. 14.자 2010마1791 결정

-대법원 2011. 4. 14. 자 2010마1791 결정

-대구지방법원 2006. 12. 14. 선고 2006가단105211 판결

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.11.13 2014가단33675