beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,030,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 25, 2016 to October 14, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a creditor of the judgment amounting to KRW 71,754,502 in total, including the principal amount of KRW 66,246,017, interest amount of KRW 5,118,185, and execution cost of KRW 390,300 (No. 2014GaGa12142) to C. The Defendant is a person who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the fourth E-S 01,02,03 (hereinafter “the instant real property”) of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on July 2, 2012, and is a person who operates brokerage in the instant real property.
B. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection order against C, the obligor, and the third obligor, the Seoul Western District Court 2014TTTTT 16233, which made the Defendant as the obligor, with respect to the claim for the above judgment amount against C’s Defendant for the claim for the payment of the construction cost against the fourth floor of the building D, Yongsan-gu, Busan District Court (hereinafter “instant claim”). On November 24, 2014, the said court rendered a decision on the seizure and collection order for the instant claim (hereinafter “instant decision”). The original decision was served on the Defendant on November 28, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. Determination
A. The parties' arguments and key issues asserted that the Defendant, the obligor of the instant claim, is obligated to pay the collection amount and damages for delay stated in the claim to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant decision, while the Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff's claim since the claim of this case was extinguished since it repaid or exempted the debt to E with legitimate right to receive payment before the decision of the seizure and collection order was served.
Ultimately, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that the instant claim occurred, and the key issue of this case is whether the instant claim was extinguished prior to the delivery of the instant decision, as alleged by the Defendant.
(b)The facts of recognition are described in sub-paragraphs 2, 3-1 to 5, 4, 6, 7-1, 2, and 3, respectively;