(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.05.19 2015가합466

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.05.19 2015가합466

채권양도금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2008, the Defendant (former Mutual Hoho Lake Construction Co., Ltd.) entered into a contract for construction works between B and B, setting the contract amount of KRW 2,356,00,000 with respect to the new construction of the sole residential life house of C building C, and the construction period from September 25, 2008 to December 20, 208.

B. B entered into a construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on September 25, 2008 by setting the construction cost of 289,200,000 and the construction period of 25 September 25, 2008 to December 20, 2008.

C. During the construction work under the said subcontract, the Plaintiff suspended the construction work, and requested B to pay the construction cost.

B transferred to the Plaintiff on July 13, 2009 the claim amounting to KRW 211,842,792 out of the claim amount against the Defendant of the said contract amount against the Plaintiff, instead of paying the subcontract price to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of claim of this case”). (e)

B on July 29, 2009, the Defendant sent a certificate of contents of the assignment of claims to the Defendant, and on July 31, 2009, the said certificate was delivered to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the remaining 201,842,792 won after deducting 10,000,000 won paid on April 20, 2010 from the acquisition amount of the claim of this case, and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant asserts that even though the defendant did not have the claim for the construction cost payable to B, the defendant did not conclude the construction contract with B, and even if there exists the claim for the construction cost, the defendant may oppose the plaintiff with the non-assignment agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims.

3. Determination

(a) by a Party’s declaration of intention of prohibition of transfer;

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.06.15 2014가합108816

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.05.17 2015가단26917

-대구지방법원 2014.08.29 2014가합1403

-수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2017가합14409

-광주지방법원 2017.04.13 2015구합394