logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가단512279
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff has a claim of KRW 181,50,000 based on the authentic copy of the No. 1443 of the No. 143 of the No. 1450 of the No. 1450 of the No. 300 of the No.

B. While preparing for compulsory execution against C, the Plaintiff confirmed that C had the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant, and received a seizure and collection order (the claimed amount KRW 181,631,000) as to the above lease deposit claim against C, which C had against the Defendant as the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2018TTT1362.

The original copy of the above seizure and collection order was served on March 8, 2018 to the defendant.

C. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the amount according to the above collection order, but the Defendant paid only KRW 50,000,000 among the above KRW 85,000,000, and did not pay the remainder KRW 35,000.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment.

2. The judgment on the issue was examined; the fact that the issuance of the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) alleged by the Plaintiff was made; the fact that the instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on March 8, 2018; and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on March 12, 2018 does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 35 million, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendant had terminated the lease contract between the Defendant and C before the collection order was served on the Defendant, and the settlement of the accounts was completed. Therefore, the Defendant may oppose the Plaintiff as to the claims to be collected.

arrow