beta
Text
1. Of the dividend table prepared on December 24, 2015 by the said court with respect to distribution procedure B cases involving Suwon District Court Ansan Branch B.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a seizure and collection order against the claim for construction payment against the general construction company (hereinafter “instant claim for construction payment”); (b) on January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff was served on the Korea Rail Network Authority, a debtor, on January 27, 2014, for the instant claim for construction payment (hereinafter “instant claim for construction payment”); and (c) the above seizure and collection order was served on the Korea Rail Network Authority, a debtor of the Korea District Court, on January 27, 2014.
B. On January 23, 2013, 201, the Defendant Aarro Co., Ltd. received a seizure and collection order (U.S. District Court Decision 2013TBE) with respect to the instant claim, and the above seizure and collection order was served on the Korea Rail Network Authority, the garnishee on January 28, 2013.
C. On January 25, 2013, Defendant U.S. Industrial Complex Co., Ltd. received a provisional attachment decision on the instant claims (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Kadan81), and the provisional attachment decision was served on the Korea Rail Network Authority, the garnishee on January 31, 2013.
On July 1, 2013, the Defendant Youngdong Industry was subject to the provisional attachment decision on the instant claims (U.S. District Court 2013Kadan2813), and the provisional attachment decision was served on the Korea Rail Network Authority, a garnishee on July 2, 2013.
E. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the collection amount with respect to Nonparty 2, but Nonparty 2 did not pay the security deposit for repairing defects, and Nonparty 2 expressed his/her intent to offset the payment amount of the instant construction payment amount owed by the KR on January 17, 2013 against the KR and the payment amount of the security deposit for repairing defects that it had against the KRNA. Accordingly, the seized claim against the Plaintiff is extinguished.