logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가단106490
사해행위취소및공탁금출급청구권확인의 소
Text

1. It is concluded on March 3, 2014 between C and the Defendant as to the claim for the refund of deposit for lease on the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From September 21, 201 to July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff invested KRW 572,978,352 to C, and C, May 23, 2013, issued a “cash loan certificate” to the Plaintiff, stating that “418,50,000 won is regularly borrowed, and the date of return shall be December 31, 2013.” The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, etc. for claiming a loan, etc. with the Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gahap394, and the said court paid the Plaintiff KRW 418,50,000 and delay damages therefrom.

The judgment was pronounced, which became final and conclusive on December 13, 2014.

B. On March 2014, C transferred to the Defendant the right to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000 with respect to 106, 302, 106, and one parcel of land, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and one parcel of land, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the transfer of the claim with a certificate with a certified fixed date on March 21, 2014.

C. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff received the provisional attachment order as Seoul Southern District Court 2014Kadan3421 with respect to the above loan claim to C as preserved right. The provisional attachment order was served on D on July 4, 2014, and the above loan claim to C was served on D on April 1, 2015, with the amount of KRW 498,989,588 as preserved right and the claim attachment and collection order (as for the above loan claim to KRW 50,00,000,000 as preserved right, the claim attachment and collection order was served on D on April 28, 2015.

D On February 26, 2016, Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the Seoul Southern District Court deposited 63,830,000 won remaining after deducting the overdue rent from the lease deposit of KRW 70,000,00, pursuant to Article 991 of the Seoul Southern District Court’s 2016, on the grounds that the assignment of claims and the seizure and collection order competes with the claims.

E. C is April 24, 2015.

arrow