beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,341,307 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 29, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 25, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) by setting the total construction cost of F second new construction works on July 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant second construction works”) at KRW 1,650,00,000, and the construction period from July 25, 2016 to May 30, 2017, and entered into a subcontract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).
9. With respect to the third new construction works of F (hereinafter “the third construction works of this case”), a subcontract was concluded by setting the construction cost of KRW 1,500,000,000 and the construction period from September 29, 2016 to June 30, 2017.
B. After the conclusion of the instant amendment agreement on the instant secondary construction and the third construction, the Defendant and E changed the entire construction period from July 25, 2016 to August 30, 2017.
C. On August 9, 2018, in order to preserve the claim for the purchase price of goods KRW 70,341,307 against E, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2018TT District Court 2018TTTT 10838) on the basis of the instant second and third construction subcontract concluded between E and the Defendant based on the instant second and third construction subcontract between E and the Defendant. The seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on August 14, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, E's response to an order to submit documents by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) The plaintiff alleged the defendant's assertion (1) since the plaintiff did not specify the subject and scope of the seized claims when issuing the seizure and collection order against all of the claims based on the second and third construction of this case, the above seizure and collection order is invalid because it does not specify the subject and scope of the seized claims.
(2) Since E transferred the claim for construction cost to the Defendant to G Co., Ltd or H Co., Ltd, E cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim as the execution creditor.
B. (1) The creditor applying for an order of seizure on a specific claim of the seized claim.