logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나26511
배당이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff A was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 18,487,700 with respect to the claim for aggregate payment against the construction price against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Co., Ltd.”) at the time of the strike, with the payment claim of KRW 18,487,700 as the claim for aggregate payment claim. On July 17, 2013, Plaintiff A filed an application against E Co., Ltd for a payment order for the payment of aggregate payment, etc. under the same court No. 2013,1450, and on July 17, 2013, “E Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff A 18,487,700 and delay damages from July 1, 2013,” the payment order was finalized on August 6, 2013.

B. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff B received a provisional attachment order of KRW 13,772,00 of the claimed amount with respect to the claim for packing construction work and equipment rent against the E Company for the construction cost claim against the K Company, as the High Government District Court Decision 2013Kadan820 on July 22, 2013. On August 6, 2013, Plaintiff B applied for a payment order against E Company for a payment order of KRW 13,772,00 and damages for delay after the delivery of the original payment order was finalized on August 6, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2013, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that the Defendant lent KRW 300,000,000 to E company as a notary public No. 343 of the document in 2013, which was signed between the Defendant and E company.

The Defendant applied for the attachment and order of the claim amount of KRW 100,00,000 and KRW 000 on the basis of the authentic copy of the instant notarial deed, which is in force by Suwon District Court 2013TTT1659, against the claim amount of the construction cost claim that the E Company holds against the case of selling, and the attachment and seizure of the claim on July 17, 2013.

arrow