logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.22 2015가단84251
추심금
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for the confirmation of rehabilitation claims against damages for delay until November 22, 2015 shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

On December 10, 2009, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000 monthly rent, and the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000 from Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rehabilitation Company”) (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to the rehabilitation company.

(hereinafter “instant lease”). D Upon the expiration of the term of validity of the instant lease on December 31, 2012, delivered the instant real estate to the rehabilitation company.

D filed a lawsuit with the rehabilitation company claiming the return of the lease deposit of this case as the court 2013da1129, and the rehabilitation company filed a counterclaim claiming the rent, etc. to D as the court 2014dada1167.

On February 12, 2014, this Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the rehabilitation company shall pay the remainder lease deposit 28,121,610 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from May 4, 2013 to the date of full payment and all of the above counterclaim claims, which the rehabilitation company deducted the unpaid rent, etc. from D themselves.

(2) On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 31,228,590 with the claim amounting to KRW 31,228,590 with the court below 2014TT 2323, the Plaintiff, a notary public of D as to the instant case, with the title of execution of the No. 849 (hereinafter “instant No. 31,28,590), which was signed by the said court, on March 5, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). The instant claim seizure and collection order were served on March 7, 2014 to the rehabilitation company.

The rehabilitation company appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance related to the instant case as the court of this case 2014Na3201, 2014Na3218 (Counterclaim).

This Court.

arrow