(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.07.10 2017가단28209

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.07.10 2017가단28209

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 2015, the Jeonju District Court (2015Kadan100577) rendered a ruling of provisional seizure of claims (hereinafter “provisional seizure of this case”) with the following contents, and the said ruling was served on the Defendants on July 23, 2015.

Claim: Claim subject to provisional attachment of KRW 80,750,000 for prior reimbursement pursuant to a credit guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff’s limited liability company C (hereinafter “debtor company”): KRW 80,750,000 out of the lease deposit with respect to the five floors of the 5th floor of the Seoul Metropolitan City D Building owned by the debtor company against the Defendants by the debtor company (hereinafter “the lease deposit of this case”).

B. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for an order to pay the indemnity amount to the debtor company with the Jeonju District Court 2017 tea4286 and applied for payment order to the Plaintiff on July 12, 2017, the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized as follows: (a) 12% per annum from October 30, 2015 to January 31, 2016; (b) 10% per annum from February 1, 2016 to June 27, 2017; and (c) 15% per annum from June 28, 2017 to the date of full payment.

C. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an order for the seizure and collection against the debtor company with the Jeonju District Court 2017TTTTY 33959, and this court rendered a decision on the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Defendants of the debtor company regarding KRW 89,664,485 (the additional seizure of KRW 80,750,00,00,000, which is the provisional seizure to be transferred to the original seizure) among the claims for return of the lease deposit of this case against the Defendants of the debtor company. The foregoing decision was served on the Defendants on October 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties shall state to the plaintiff the purport of the claim corresponding to 1/2 of the lease deposit of this case according to the seizure and collection order of this case.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2015.04.02 2014가합6073

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.06 2018가단202419

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.13 2017가단5034472

-대전지방법원 2019.08.14 2018나12887

-전주지방법원 2016.09.20 2015가단27837