beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 4 and 5 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 94,479,450 from the Incheon District Court 2013TTT No. 2013, Jan. 14, 2013 by a notary public of the Plaintiff based on an executory deed No. 2855 of the law firm affairs certificate No. 2013, Jan. 14, 2013. The Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the notary public of the Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on January 17, 2013.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff, as a collection right holder, seek payment of KRW 44,631,250, excluding KRW 49,848,200, which was repaid by B after the seizure and collection order was issued by the Defendant, out of KRW 94,479,450.
According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, B supplied goods equivalent to KRW 41,166,032 to the Defendant from January 2013, 2013 with the trade name “D,” but in full view of the purport of the argument in the above evidence, the Defendant sold KRW 49,50,000 to B on May 31, 2012; the Defendant paid KRW 7,067,020 to B as advance payment; the Defendant traded the goods payment claim with the goods payment claim with the goods payment claim with the goods payment claim; the Defendant traded with the goods payment claim with the goods payment claim with the goods payment claim against the Defendant around January 2013; the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant was already extinguished as a set-off; rather, the Defendant’s claim against the goods payment claim against the Defendant was acknowledged to be in excess of KRW 15,40,98,98, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant’s goods payment claim against the Defendant is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that, after issuing a seizure and collection order, B continues to engage in the business registration called “F” in the name of her mother, and thus, B had a claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant. However, the Defendant’s business operator, who started the transaction from the time of issuing the seizure and collection order, merely because B was the mother of B.