beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,740,021 and a rate of KRW 20% per annum from January 23, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2's purport of the whole pleadings.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Kadan146488) against Songsung C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P&C”) with the purport that “P&C shall pay to the Plaintiff 23,565,000 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from May 10, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment was finalized around that time.
B. However, despite the completion of the construction by being awarded a contract by the Defendant around 2012, the consignor was not paid the construction cost of KRW 123,802,90 among the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction cost”).
C. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2014 other 22675) against the instant construction cost, and the said order was served on the Defendant on September 11, 2014, in order to enforce the above judgment amounting to KRW 24,740,021 (i.e., KRW 23,565,000 of the judgment principal from May 10, 2014 to August 8, 2014).
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay 24,740,021 won out of the construction price of this case to the Plaintiff, who is the person liable to seize and collect the construction price of this case, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 23, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
In regard to this, the defendant argued that, as well as defects during the construction of the shipping, the creditors of the shipping cannot pay the collection money to the plaintiff because they received multiple seizures and collection orders concerning the construction payment of this case. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.