beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ Plaintiff was finalized on February 13, 2014 by Seoul Eastern District Court case No. 2013 Ghana6704.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 3, 2014, Nonparty B attached the enforcement claim amounting to KRW 100 million, among the damage claims against Defendant’s convenience soil distribution, the execution claim, the obligor’s convenience soil distribution, and the third obligor’s claim. Nonparty B’s lease deposit return claim against the Plaintiff by Defendant convenience soil distribution under Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan10045, and the provisional attachment decision was served on the Plaintiff around that time.
B. Defendant Convenience Co., Ltd filed a lawsuit against the lessor against the Plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Gaso67704, and the said court on February 13, 2014, the said court rendered a settlement recommendation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay 11,400,000 won to Defendant Convenience Co., Ltd. until March 10, 2014. If the Plaintiff fails to pay the said amount by the payment date, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum from the day following the payment date to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant enforcement title”). The said decision became final and conclusive at that time without both parties’ objection.
C. B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant convenience business distribution in Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2013Gahap105968, Nov. 5, 2014 against the Defendant convenience business distribution, and the said court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant convenience business distribution is 261,80,000 won and 100,000 won out of them shall be 261,80,000 won, and 161,80,000 won shall be 6% per annum from April 18, 2014 to November 5, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
B under the above judgment, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2015TTTT15341, which transferred the provisional seizure to the principal seizure, was issued with the seizure and collection order, and the above decision was served to the Plaintiff around that time.
The defendant's convenience culture distribution did not receive the money of the executive title of this case from the plaintiff.