beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,463,483 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 8, 2013 to July 31, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 12, 2013, the Defendant received an order to pay the Plaintiff and C’s Deposit Claim Nos. 2010 tea 288 (the claim for rent for construction temporary materials, the claim for rent for construction temporary materials, the confirmation on June 4, 2010), 201 tea 213 (the claim for rent and cost of removal, the final decision on May 4, 2011), from the National Bank, to collect KRW 20,643,483 from the National Bank upon receiving the order to seize and collect the Plaintiff’s deposit Claim against the National Bank Co., Ltd. under the Daegu District Court Seo-gu District Court Seo Branch Branch 2013TT 1055.
B. However, the Plaintiff concluded a conciliation on April 4, 2014, where the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek the denial of compulsory execution based on each of the above payment orders (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Gahap934) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not conclude a contract for the lease of goods (a building material) that the Defendant asserted as the cause of application in each of the above payment orders, and did not prepare a contract for the lease of goods submitted by the Defendant (the Plaintiff’s assertion that each type C used the Plaintiff’s name by stealing), and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek the denial of compulsory execution based on each of the above payment orders (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Gahap934).
C. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “on the basis of the above collection order, the Plaintiff immediately returned the money collected from the National Bank,” but the Defendant did not comply with this order.
On the other hand, on May 23, 2014, the Daegu District Court rendered a ruling to revoke the seizure and collection order of the above claim in the Western Branch Branch of the District Court.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant ultimately obtains profits equivalent to KRW 20,643,483 without any legal ground, and damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.