beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered in Seoul Southern District Court 2016Da37789, the Plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection of KRW 87,259,398 from the Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTT 22900, the amount claimed against the Defendant, the garnishee, who is the garnishee, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered in the Seoul Southern District Court 2016Da3789. On January 17, 2018,
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay KRW 87,259,398 of the claimed amount among the lease deposit that the defendant returns to the debtor C according to the above seizure and collection order.
In light of the above evidence and the purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff set the amount claimed as KRW 87,259,398 from the above seizure and collection order, and determined the amount claimed as KRW 87,259,398 from the above claim seizure and collection order, and it is found that Eul received a seizure and collection order as to the remaining amount excluding KRW 32,000,000,000,000,000 from the lease deposit that C can be preferentially reimbursed pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, but there is no evidence to prove that the amount to be returned to C by the defendant exceeds KRW 32,00,000,000,000,000 in consideration of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1
The lease deposit amount of KRW 4 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.4 million, and lease term of KRW 2.4 million from July 30, 2015 to October 29, 2015 is recognized only as the conclusion of the lease contract with C.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.