beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall be KRW 22,756,410 and 20% per annum from December 4, 2012 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 23, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a provisional attachment order with respect to C’s claim for the construction cost as the preserved right; (b) as the obligor C, the third obligor Defendants, and the claim amounting to KRW 98 million, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order against C’s claim for each of the construction cost claims against the Defendants (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap67734, including the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap6734) (hereinafter “the construction cost of this case”); and (c) the provisional attachment order was served on the Defendants on October 28, 200.
B. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) received the original copy of the judgment on the purchase price of the goods (79,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from July 8, 2011 to the date of full payment) from the Suwon District Court of Incheon on February 7, 2012; (b) KRW 22,756,410 in relation to Defendant B among the instant construction price claim under the title 22,756,4115, the Plaintiff received the attachment and the collection order against Defendant DEdiel for KRW 32,66,00, KRW 32,668,00 in relation to the instant construction price claim; and (c) the Defendants received the attachment and the collection order from the time of February 7, 2012 to the date of full payment; and (d) the said order became final and conclusive on February 21, 201.
C. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendants (the first instance court 2007Gahap67734, Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap67734), and the Seoul High Court 2009Na54760 (the principal lawsuit) and 54777 (Counterclaim), the appellate court, rendered a judgment with the following contents (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
Since the director of the Seocho District Tax Office seizes both C’s claim for the construction price against Defendant DSEL over two occasions, C shall dismiss the lawsuit against Defendant DSEL on the ground that the party’s standing to file a performance suit against the claim for the construction price has been lost.
The defendant B and the defendant DSIB are jointly and severally in Seoul.