logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2015.08.19 2015가단2153
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, F, around 2013, did not receive construction cost equivalent to KRW 70,118,915 (hereinafter “instant claim for construction cost”) from the defendant after entering into a ship block painting construction contract with the defendant and having constructed it, and the plaintiff et al. had not received construction cost equivalent to KRW 70,118,915 (hereinafter “the instant claim for construction cost”). On February 5, 2015, the plaintiff et al. received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 28,331,380 among the claim for construction cost of this case under the same court-based 2015TTT57, based on the final judgment of the case, such as wages, etc., from which the plaintiff et al.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the claim amount and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the claim for construction cost of this case was extinguished, since the Defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the claim for construction cost of this case.

According to the entries and the purport of the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that not only the plaintiff et al. but also other creditors received provisional seizure or seizure and collection order as to the claim for the construction price of this case and the amount substantially exceeds the amount of the claim for the construction price of this case, and that the defendant company deposited KRW 82,216,445 equivalent to the principal and interest, etc. of the claim for the construction price of this case under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on April 9, 2015.

Therefore, F’s claim for construction cost of this case against F Company was legally extinguished according to the execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

The defendant's assertion pointing this out has merit, and the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the claim for construction price still exists is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is rejected for lack of reason.

arrow