logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.10 2019가단22551
공탁금 출급청구권 확인
Text

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2019, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and Defendant C entered into a contract for the transfer of the credit account receivable amounting to KRW 36,49,297 against the G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with respect to the non-party company G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On January 17, 2019, based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed with the executory power of No. 468, 2017 against the non-party company G, the Plaintiff was issued an order of seizure and assignment of the claim amounting to KRW 140,00,000 against the non-party company G with the Daegu District Court 2019TTT142.

The above assignment order was served on G on January 22, 2019.

C. On January 18, 2019, Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) received a claim attachment and collection order with the Daegu District Court 2019TB50,500, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 841, 2018 against Nonparty Co., Ltd.’s G, based on the executory power of No. 841, 2018.

The above order of seizure and collection was served on G on January 23, 2019.

G on February 1, 2019, the Daegu District Court deposited KRW 57,055,122 (No. 667, 2019; hereinafter “the first deposit money of this case”) in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and KRW 36,49,297 (No. 676, 2019; hereinafter “the second deposit money of this case”) pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act with the deposited person as Nonparty and Defendant C, and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. ex officio of the relevant legal doctrine, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is against the Defendant to eliminate the risk that the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status is infeasible and uneasible.

arrow