logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울지법 북부지원 1984. 1. 19. 선고 83가합799 제1민사부판결 : 확정
[양수금청구사건][하집1984(1),138]
Main Issues

Effect of claims transferred as security for other obligations;

Summary of Judgment

Even if the assignment of claims was made as a security for another obligation, and the obligation has been repaid, the obligor of the transferred claim shall pay the assigned obligation to the assignee regardless of the extinguishment of the obligation between the assignee and the assignee.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 449 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

【Court Decision 79Da709 delivered on September 25, 1979 (Bail Article 449(1) of the Civil Act, No. 48, No. 621, No. 1259)

Plaintiff

Han Byung-Jin Park

Defendant

Abuse of Interest

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Blue Jinjin

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,810,000 won with 25% interest per annum from June 30, 1983 to the date of full payment.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the remainder of the intervenor joining the court is assessed against the defendant.

3. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 (written lease contract), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Notice), 4 (Notice), 3 (Notice of Claim Transfer), and Gap evidence Nos. 2 (written transfer) which are presumed to have been authenticity of the document due to the lack of dispute over the facts of receipt of the entire document, and Gap evidence Nos. 2 (written claim transfer) which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the whole purport of the testimony and pleading on the date of the witness, and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading, the defendant's defendant's defendant did not transfer the above lease deposit money to the plaintiff on Oct. 15, 1982 and the defendant's 2-18, Dong-gu Seoul, Seoul, 400,00 won and the lease period of the lease contract concluded for six months from the day of the day of the day of the above lease contract, and the defendant transferred the lease deposit money to the above plaintiff on Dec. 15, 1982 and notified the above defendant on Dec. 19, 1982.

However, the defendant joining the defendant asserts that the above assignment of claims was made by the defendant joining the defendant for payment of KRW 2,230,00 for the liquidation amount of KRW 2,230,00 due to the termination of the business operation of the YY between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and that the defendant joining the defendant fully satisfied the secured debt. Thus, the above assignment of claims was made by the defendant as security of other obligations according to the defendant joining the defendant's assertion, and even if the above assignment of claims was repaid, this is not only the issue of the assignment of claims, but also the issue of the defendant joining the defendant and the plaintiff who is the transferee, and the defendant who is the debtor of the transferred claims, must pay the transferred debt to the plaintiff, the assignee regardless of the extinguishment of the obligation between the above transferor and the transferee (Supreme Court Decision

In addition, on May 15, 1983, the defendant sold the house to the non-party Park Chang-kak and acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case to the ward. Thus, the defendant asserted that there is no obligation to return the lease deposit of this case, and therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 4 (Notice).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from June 30, 1983 to the full payment date, which is the next day after the filing date of the lawsuit in this case as to the amount of KRW 2,810,000, excluding the amount of KRW 690,000, which the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff from among the above lease deposit, and the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from June 30, 1983 to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, and Article 6 of the above Act with respect to a declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)

arrow