beta
Text
1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who is a partner of D, the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) and served as C’s manager.
B. On December 26, 2012, C filed a lawsuit against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) seeking refund of unjust benefits with 23734 by the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “E”), and on September 5, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a favorable judgment (hereinafter “the final judgment in this case”) with the effect that “E would pay damages for delay from September 2, 2010,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 2016 in accordance with the Seoul High Court Decision dismissing Appeal No. 2015Na10150 and the final appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court Decision No. 158777.
(c)
C With respect to the instant final judgment (the first judgment with which a provisional execution is attached), C filed an application for the attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and collection order”) with respect to the instant claim against the Defendant under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016, and 8348, with the title to execute the final judgment (the first judgment with which a provisional execution is attached), and received the court’s decision on May 18, 2016. The said decision was served on the Defendant as the garnishee on May 23, 2016.
(d)
The Defendant deposited KRW 13,00,000, which is equivalent to the amount of the seized claim, as Seoul Central District Court 2016, KRW 15706, and reported the reason for deposit on July 7, 2016 (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”), with respect to the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, and prepared a distribution list (hereinafter “the dividend list of this case”) to C on September 2, 2016, including KRW 12,90,050 (the sum of KRW 13,00,000 (the sum of KRW 13,000,000,000 interest of KRW 11,139,189, and KRW 139,000).
E. In the instant dividend procedure, the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error in the seized claim(the Intervenor E’s claim against the Intervenor E) in the instant dividend procedure.
such collection rights or claims have been transferred.