206business group609 Revocation of provisional seizure

○○

○ ○

5, 2006

1. On March 13, 2006, this Court revoked the claim amount exceeding 30,382,258 won in the decision of provisional seizure against claims stated in the "Indication of Claim to be provisionally seized" attached Form 30 on March 13, 2006 between the claimant and the respondent.

2. The applicant's remaining applications are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant.

This Act shall apply to claims for provisional seizure against claims between the claimant and the respondent

On March 13, 2006, the provisional attachment ruling made by the Won on March 13, 2006

If the cancellation is.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized by the court of this case or by taking into account the overall purport of the records and examinations of this case:

(a)the existence of the ruling of provisional attachment;

The respondent shall have the right to claim a child support of KRW 31,150,000 against the applicant as a preserved right.

As the court 2006 business group462 applied for provisional seizure against the claims stated in the "Indication of claims to be provisionally seized", this court accepted them and rendered the provisional seizure decision stated in the Disposition No. 1 of March 13, 2006 (hereinafter "the provisional seizure decision of this case").

B. The Claimant and the Respondent completed the adjudication procedure (1) on July 18, 1997, and on February 26, 2001, the applicant and the Respondent adopted the Non-Appellant of the Respondent as the adopted child, and the agreement was reached on January 23, 2002, and the Respondent is raising the above attention until now after the divorce.

(2) The respondent filed a lawsuit against the applicant to claim the payment of consolation money and the child support for the above U.S. dollars under the Daejeon District Court 2002dhap781. On January 15, 2004, the applicant appointed an attorney and respondeded to the lawsuit. On the ground that the applicant continued to communicate with the non-applicant, the marital relationship between the applicant and the respondent has reached the failure. The above court rendered a judgment of 20% on January 16, 200, and 20% interest per annum from January 16, 2004 to 20% interest per annum from January 16, 2004 to the date of full payment. The applicant made a judgment of 30% on July 25, 2013 against the respondent, which became final and conclusive on July 14, 2013.

Accordingly, the respondent filed an appeal with the Daejeon High Court 2004B1 on February 3, 2006, and the above court ruled on February 3, 2006 that "the part against the respondent ordering payment exceeding 57,249,707 won among the original adjudication shall be revoked, and the applicant's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed," and the above decision shall be dismissed.

15. The decision was finalized as it is.

C. Deposit of respondent

Meanwhile, from December 1, 2002 to the date when the above Daejeon District Court 202Dhap781 case and the Daejeon High Court 2004B1 case became final and conclusive, the respondent paid 57,845,731 won (the principal 57,249,707 won + KRW 306, 206, 306, 2086, 207, 208, 206) to the applicant in accordance with the decision of the Daejeon High Court 2004B1 case and 57, 845, 731 won (the principal 57, 249, 707 won + KRW 306, 206, 2006) to the date when the damages for delay occurred from February 15, 2006 to March 6, 2006.

D. The applicant partially paid the child support (1) filed the instant application on March 27, 2006, but did not pay the part of the child support on March 27, 2006, and this court, on April 24, 2006, recommended the applicant to pay the child support to the respondent on the last day of each month by the next day, while inducing a smooth agreement between the parties on April 24, 2006 at the first hearing.

(2) On May 12, 2005, the applicant sent a e-mail demanding the respondent to inform him of the payment account for child support, but on June 9, 2006, the respondent opened a passbook in the name of the above △△ on which he did not comply, and deposited KRW 1,050,000 on March 12, 2006 through June 6, 2006. (3) The applicant issued the above passbook and the seal to the respondent on June 12, 2006.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The applicant was living in Japan from February 2003, and did not know the fact that he had been living in Japan before he returned to the Republic of Korea on December 28, 2005 and received a deposit notice from the court, and even though he was economically difficult condition, he is currently serving in a foreign insurance company, so the respondent may be fully paid the child support every month to the respondent. As this constitutes a case where the necessity of preserving the provisional attachment decision of this case is extinguished or changed, the provisional attachment decision of this case should be revoked. The respondent asserted to the purport that the applicant is the above Daejeon District Court 2002dhap781 case, which became final and conclusive on February 11, 2004.

1. The provisional attachment decision of this case cannot be deemed to have been extinguished or changed since the child support was not paid at all for about 39 months from February 28, 2006.

B. Determination

(A) Determination on the right to be preserved

According to the above, the total amount of the preserved claim of this case was determined as 4,732,258 won (350,000 won x (127 + 25/31) month x less than won x (127 + 25 / 25/31) x 14,350,000 won (13,300,000 + 1,050 won + 1,000,000 won) due to set-off by the respondent and the payment of the applicant. This constitutes a case where the reason for preservative measure is extinguished after the issuance of preservative measure or it is not reasonable to maintain preservative measure due to any other change in other circumstances, and thus, it is reasonable to revoke the portion exceeding 30,382,258 won, 4, 254, 205, 305, 305, 405, 200 won among the provisional seizure decision of this case.

(B) Determination on the necessity of preservation

In light of the above argument by the applicant that the necessity of preserving the provisional attachment decision of this case was extinguished or changed, the fact that the applicant paid the child support to the respondent on March through June 2006 according to the recommendation of this court is as seen earlier, and in full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of this case, the applicant is entitled to receive not less than KRW 4,100,000 for each month from January 1, 2006 at the malicious Insurance Co., Ltd. which is a foreign insurance company.

However, in full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of this case, ① the applicant appointed an attorney for each of the above lawsuits and performed them. The applicant has entered the Republic of Korea several times from the above Daejeon District Court 2002dhap781 case to February 11, 2004 where the above judgment became final and conclusive, and ③ the applicant sent e-mail to the respondent on January 15, 2003, stating that “the claim for division of property, consolation money, and child support claim already raised shall be done as decided by the court,” ③ the applicant was not able to recover the above 7th day of January 18, 2006 under the condition that the applicant would have been paid KRW 590,000 from the Credit Counseling Committee for 96 months to the above 2th day of the dissolution, and the applicant could not be found to have paid the above 10th day of the lease deposit and the above 2nd day of the Daejeon District Court 200,000 won and the above 2nd day of the above 7th day.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the applicant's application of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Kim Young-hoon

A person shall be appointed.