beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the Incheon District Court on August 5, 2014, based on the decision on performance recommendation 2014 Ghana84155.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. According to the Incheon District Court 2013Kahap1668, the Defendant received a seizure collection order against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of the construction price against the Plaintiff by Daeungungung District Court 2013Kahap168, and the said order was served on August 19, 2013 on the third debtor.
B. Meanwhile, on November 21, 2013, Dae Young-gu filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction cost, and received a partial favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on November 21, 2013, stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to Dae Young-gu 12,977,343 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from November 23, 2012 to November 21, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Gahap58), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 2013.
C. On November 26, 2013, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail requesting the Plaintiff to pay the collection amount according to the instant collection order, and then filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to claim the collection amount under the Incheon District Court 2014Gaso84155, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 18 million and the delay damages therefrom” was finalized on January 3, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Plaintiff was provisionally attached to the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against the Scco Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scco Construction”), and deposited all the construction cost that the Scco Construction shall pay to the Plaintiff. As such, it should be deemed that the claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff, namely, the seized claim for the seizure collection order, was extinguished.
3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 as a whole, the Plaintiff before filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for construction cost as Seoul Western District Court 2012Gahap588.