logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.10.07 2013가단34839
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,540,00 and its amount from January 4, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2013, the Plaintiff received a request for the manufacture of steel structure from Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Young Engineering”), and supplied steel structure products on February 20, 2013, and the remaining goods price claim amounting to KRW 12,540,000.

B. On April 8, 2013, Defendant Young Engineering entered into a contract on the assignment of claims in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant contract on the assignment of claims”) with Defendant Young Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Young Industries”), and Defendant Young Engineering notified Defendant Young Engineering Co., Ltd., the third debtor, of the assignment of claims on April 12, 2013.

C. Around June 5, 2013, Defendant Electric Utility Co., Ltd. received reimbursement of KRW 282,187,400 as indicated in the [Attachment] List from Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Construction Co., Ltd., a garnishee.

Since then, Defendant Young Engineering was closed on October 31, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Eul evidence 4-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant Young Engineering, Defendant Young Engineering is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 12,540,000 for goods and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 4, 2014 following the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant’s electric utility industry

A. Where a fraudulent act causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors by reducing liability property, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act that is the object of creditor revocation is justifiable as it has the weight of the debtor's entire liability property, the degree of insolvency, and the economic purpose of the juristic act.

arrow