beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Defendant: 64,974,119 won and 19 won to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a stock company that runs the construction business, and the Defendant (formerly: Tae Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.) is a stock company that runs the manufacturing business, such as mechanical equipment.
B. The Plaintiff loaned 300,000,000 won to the Defendant on September 30, 2008 and 30,000,000 won on June 1, 2009 without specifying interest (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The Defendant decided to immediately repay the instant loan upon the Plaintiff’s request.
After that, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to return the loan of this case several times prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, but the defendant does not comply with this.
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on February 6, 2014, the Intervenor A received an order for seizure and assignment of the claim against the Plaintiff from the Gwangju District Court 2014TT2182 based on the executory order of payment for personnel expenses in the Jeonju District Court 2012 tea 5789, and “78,451,819 won out of the amount that the Plaintiff would receive from the Defendant,” which became final and conclusive on March 6, 2014 after the delivery to the Defendant on February 10, 2014.
On June 11, 2014, the Intervenor: (a) based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Jeonju District Court 2013Kahap1074 on June 11, 2014; and (b) based on the Gwangju District Court 2014TTTT1040, the Plaintiff was ordered to seize and seize the claims against the Defendant (i.e., the judgment, decision, order, protocol of compromise, recognition and recognition, protocol of mediation, etc.) that the Plaintiff owns against the Defendant, for the subject of litigation in the Gwangju District Court 2013Kahap167 and Gwangju High Court 2014Na1828; and (c) on July 4, 2014, the said decision was finalized on June 13, 2014 after being served on the Defendant on June 13, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3.