beta
Text
1. The part concerning the claim for delay damages in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay 36,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D helps to conclude a subcontract contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and the Defendant to increase the settlement agreement with E after the completion of construction work.
E, as a consideration for this, paid KRW 200 million to D, and paid the remaining KRW 100 million until January 15, 2016, E prepared and issued a loan certificate to the effect that E borrowed KRW 100 million from D without molding it on December 28, 2015.
B. On August 25, 2016, D received a provisional seizure order against the claim amounting to KRW 100 million out of the subcontract construction cost against E’s subcontractor. On August 29, 2016, D served the court with the notice of provisional seizure and statement, and on September 8, 2016, submitted the third obligor’s statement recognizing the claim amounting to KRW 263 million in the court.
C. On the other hand, on April 5, 2017, in order to collect D’s amount of national taxes in arrears of KRW 61,789,79,790 from D, the head of the tax office attached KRW 61,789,790 (including interest on the principal and interest accrued after lending) out of D’s loan claims (including interest on the principal and interest accrued after lending) under the National Tax Collection Act, and around that time, the notice of attachment of claims was served to E.
In addition, on July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff (Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTT737), as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TT 777, issued a decision on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to KRW 36 million among D’s loan claims against D, and the decision on the seizure and collection order was served to E on July 18, 2017.
D In Suwon District Court 2016Da114338, Jun. 2, 2016, the reason for the claim was changed from the loan to the agreed amount, but the above disposition of arrears and the decision of the seizure collection order of this case were effective against the agreed amount claim. Accordingly, D is entitled to seek performance of the above claim (=61,789,790 Won 36 million won) and its delay damages claim.