(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.09.13 2018가단10255

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.09.13 2018가단10255

추심금

Text

1. The Defendant paid KRW 6,479,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from April 17, 2018 to September 13, 2018.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or recognition is made in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of all pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff holds in title the executory exemplification of the judgment in the construction cost case No. 2017Kadan319 against Sam Young General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seo Young-gu Co., Ltd.”).

B. The non-party company entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new building in a water-driven cultural bank building on the ground of 164-3 of the Daegu Pungdong-dong 164-3.

C. The plaintiff is the above A.

The original copy of the judgment in paragraph (1) shall be named as the Daegu District Court 2017TTTTT12908, the debtor, the defendant, the third debtor, the claim amount of the non-party company KRW 62,233,569 (the principal amount of KRW 55,400,00, and the damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from November 3, 2016 to August 28, 2017, shall be named as the execution title). The above part of the non-party company shall be named as the non-party company.

The order of seizure and collection was issued on August 31, 2017, and the seizure and collection order was issued on the claim for the construction cost under the construction contract under the construction contract (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). This order was finalized around that time.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the parties concerned sought payment of the entire amount of the claim that was recognized as seizure and collection in accordance with the seizure and collection order of this case, the Defendant asserted that the construction was suspended as the non-party company discontinued only a part of the construction, and the payment of the construction cost calculated according to its flag ratio was merely KRW 6,479,000, and that the above amount cannot be paid.

B. Even if there exists a collection order against the claim 1, it is alleged by the creditor that the debtor holds against the third debtor.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나39837

-대전지방법원 2019.05.23 2017가단223306

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.08 2013가단52418

-인천지방법원 2014.12.19 2013가합19140

-대법원 2010. 8. 19. 선고 2009다70067 판결