logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.23 2014가단46262
전부금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,414,984 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 26, 2013 to September 23, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a notary public against the non-party company, was issued an assignment order on April 22, 2013, with respect to KRW 6,680,00, out of the non-party company’s claim for the payment for soil and sand transport at the construction site B against the Defendant, Incheon District Court Decision 2013TY 201TY 4409 (hereinafter “instant assignment order”). The assignment order was served on the Defendant on April 25, 2013, while the non-party company filed an immediate appeal against the instant assignment order, but the decision was finalized on January 28, 2014.

B. The Defendant was liable to Nonparty Company for the costs of soil and sand transportation KRW 145,270,000, but paid KRW 113,855,016 to Nonparty Company prior to the delivery of the assignment order of this case. At the time of the delivery of the assignment order of this case, the Defendant’s outstanding amount owed to Nonparty Company was KRW 31,414,984.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, at the time when the assignment order of this case was served on the Defendant, the non-party company’s claim against the Defendant was KRW 31,414,984 at the time when the assignment order of this case was served to the Defendant, and the above claim was delivered retroactively to the Plaintiff at the time of the delivery of the assignment order of this case. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from April 26, 2013 until September 23, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation of this case as to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff.

When the assignment order of this case is served, the entire claim is satisfied.

arrow