logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가합569372
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was issued a lease deposit claim against the Defendant of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court 2015j. 9, Jan. 13, 2015, 2015, which rendered the Daejeon District Court 2015Da1113, Apr. 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) regarding the lease deposit claim against the Defendant of the Gyeyang-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul Central District Court 2015Da201909, Apr. 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant collection order”). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount collected to the Plaintiff,582,113 won, and delay damages therefrom.

B. A claim for the amount of collection is a claim filed under his/her own name without representing or subrogated the debtor's all rights necessary for the collection of the seized claim by the creditor upon whom the collection order was issued, and the existence of the claim for collection should be proved by the plaintiff, the collection obligee, as a requisite fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). In the instant case, according to the written evidence Nos. 3 and 5 of the Evidence Nos. 3 and 5, it is deemed that the ballast Water Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with the Defendant on July 27, 2012 under which the right to lease of some of the stores of this case was sold (sale) from the Defendant, a corporate agent implementing the instant commercial building construction project, on July 27, 2012. However, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff including the evidence No. 9 is added, it is insufficient to recognize that the Ballast Water Co., Ltd has the right to refund the lease deposit against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Ultimately, the collection order of this case is null and void as it relates to a non-existent claim.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow