logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.11 2016가단9146
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,220,916 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 2014, a judgment was rendered on June 27, 2014, that “The Defendant Union shall pay C the amount of KRW 91,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 13, 2012 to June 24, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and became final and conclusive around that time.

(2013Gahap3496) b.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, on March 3, 2015, served as KRW 37,220,916 upon C’s claim amounting to KRW 37,220,916, was subject to attachment and collection order regarding the claim against C’s Defendant Union (this Court 2015TT 1374), and around that time, served on the Defendant Union

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 37,220,916 and delay damages at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant Union asserts that there is a risk of double payment, as C raises an objection to the enforcement claim against the Plaintiff (this Court Decision 2016Gadan9917).

On the other hand, the absence or extinction of an executory claim does not mean that the defendant, who is the third obligor, can refuse the performance of the executory claim by asserting it as a defense in a collection lawsuit in the grounds for the executory claim objection lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). This part of the allegation by the defendant's association is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow