beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former Industrial Development”) entered into a contract for D and E New Construction to subcontract D and D Melelel Construction (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) with New Heung Broadcasting Co., Ltd. on August 23, 201. Defendant A, B, and C are employees of Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of materials with Heung Broadcasting Co., Ltd. from October 201 to December 201, 201.
B. On December 15, 201, during the construction of the instant construction project, New Heacon transferred each of the instant construction cost claims against Defendant Hyundai Industries Development, KRW 100 million,180,000,000,000 to F and Daehan. Each of the said assignment of claims reached the development of Defendant Hyundai Industries on December 20, 201 and December 21, 201.
C. In addition, from December 20, 201, Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development was notified from around December 20, 201, of the decision of provisional seizure of claims by creditors of New Heacon and of the direct claim for the purchase of goods by the Plaintiff and the subcontractor for new Heacon.
Around January 4, 2012, Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development agreed to provide a fair rate of 66.1% with respect to the construction work details until December 28, 201, and to settle the final settlement amount of KRW 733,802,690 with respect to the construction work details by December 28, 2011.
After that, the Defendant Hyundai Industrial Development, based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, is that the deposited person is the Plaintiff and the interesting family Contact, etc., and “The notification of each transfer of claims for the construction price of this case was given, the provisional attachment order, seizure and collection order was served, and there was a request for direct payment by the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, the cause of mixed deposit was overlapped