logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.05.23 2013가단38070
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 8, 2013 to October 28, 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 201695, with respect to the amount up to KRW 60,000,000 among the claim for the purchase price of goods against D based on a promissory note No. 451, 2012, a notary public C office deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”). The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on September 6, 2013.

B. As to the instant order of seizure and collection, the Defendant filed an immediate appeal under the Suwon District Court 2013Ra1703 by asserting that “The transaction relation with D was terminated as of September 7, 2013, and the amount of unpaid goods was merely KRW 10,384,842,” with regard to the instant order of seizure and collection, but on October 8, 2013, the Defendant rendered a final decision of dismissal (hereinafter “decision of dismissal of the instant appeal”) on the ground that the absence, extinguishment, etc. of the seized claim cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Moreover, D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for objection against the instant No. 2013Ga40529, Apr. 4, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1-1 and Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of each of the following circumstances acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim and each of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7’s evidence, namely, that even around October 8, 2013, D continues to supply goods to the Defendant, and that the size of the goods supplied to the Defendant by D would exceed an average of KRW 50 million per month (see evidence No. 4 and 6’s evidence), it shall be deemed that the sum of the amount of goods supplied by D to the Defendant during the period following issuance of a collection order and the amount of goods supplied by D during October 8, 2013 and the amount of goods unpaid as of September 7, 2013 exceeds KRW 60 million.

arrow