logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.20 2016가합902
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

() From the Defendant on December 31, 2014, the Defendant received a contract for D Corporation in the year 2015 (the area in charge: E, F, G, Hdong, I, Jdong) with the contractual unit price of KRW 48,672,897, estimated contract amount of KRW 3,691,212,50, term of contract from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The instant construction contract claim arising under the instant construction contract is referred to as “the instant construction contract claim”).

(2) On March 17, 2015, C transferred the instant claim for construction cost to the Plaintiff (K Co., Ltd. before a merger by division), one’s creditor, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on March 11, 2016, and the notification was sent to the Defendant on March 14, 2016.

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

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the construction price to the plaintiff who acquired the claim for the construction price of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. The Defendant’s defense 1) The summary of the Defendant’s defense had already transferred the instant construction cost claim to the Industrial Bank of Korea before notifying the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the transfer by means of a certificate with a fixed date. As such, the Plaintiff cannot assert the right as the assignee to the Defendant. 2) In a case where the claim was transferred doublely, the transferee’s notification of the transfer with a fixed date should be determined by the date of receipt of the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994). In addition, if the transferor has lawfully satisfied the requisite for setting up against the obligor by a fixed date certificate with a fixed date transferred by the transferor to the first assignee, the claim is transferred to the first assignee, and the transferor loses

Therefore, it will be followed.

arrow