beta
Text
The defendant's 36,626,847 Won and its related 5% per annum from November 2, 2019 to January 21, 2021.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 23, 2016, Non-Party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party D”) paid to the Defendant a deposit for defective repair (hereinafter “the deposit for defective repair”) amounting to KRW 77,090,047 from November 2, 2016 to November 1, 2019, the term of warranty liability for F Corporation’s defective repair liability for the Defendant.
B. On June 20, 2020, the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the non-party company’s transfer of the principal and interest of the defect repair bond, and the non-party company notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above claim around July 9, 2020.
[Evidences : Evidence No. 1 to 6, No. 8 to 15, and the purport of the whole of the statements and changes in Evidence No. 1 to 6
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to refund the defective repair deposit of this case to the plaintiff within the limit of KRW 100 million,00,090,047, which is the acquisition amount, and the delayed damages.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed, since the attachment and assignment order was already served by other creditors on the claim to return the defective repair deposit of this case.
2) In light of the purport of each of the statements and changes in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers) and the whole theory, G obtained a ruling with the executory power over the construction cost case of Suwon Branch of Suwon District Court 2017 J. a group of 96 construction cost cases against the non-party company (the above ruling becomes final and conclusive on March 18, 2019) on June 12, 2018, with the debtor as the non-party company, the third party as the defendant, and the defendant as the non-party company at KRW 40,463,200, the amount claimed as KRW 9315 (hereinafter “the seizure and assignment order of this case”). The seizure and assignment order of this case was served on the defendant on June 18, 2018, and it was recognized that the seizure and assignment order of this case was served on the non-party company on the non-party company.
The above facts of recognition.