beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to return tin (Seoul District Court Branch 2012Gadan5827), and on October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to return tin (hereinafter “SP”) with the Daejeon District Court, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff until July 31, 2014; if the amount is not paid by the above date, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment shall be paid; Provided, That if the amount is not paid by the above date, the amount shall be paid by adding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment to the date of full payment.” In the event of payment by the above period, the
B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Daejeon District Court for a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the refund of deposit money against the Defendant in Sungwon-si (hereinafter “instant claim”). On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order from the above court, and received the above court received the seizure and collection order, and the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from September 20, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.
B. In regard to this, the defendant asserts that other creditors of Sungwon, Co., Ltd., in addition to the plaintiff, were in the condition of seizure and collection order by issuing a claim seizure and collection order against the claim of this case, and that the claim of this case is to be deposited for execution. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
Even if multiple collection orders are issued with respect to the same claim, there is no order of priority between them.