beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 461,106 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 5, 2016 to October 25, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts were supplied by the Defendant from April 2008 to March 2012, 2008 to C, which is operating a mutual company called “B”, and the Defendant was engaged in the transaction in which the price was paid.
On July 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an order of seizure and collection (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to C’s claim for the amount of claim KRW 41,838,341, which is KRW 41,000,000 with respect to the claim for the purchase of goods against C, and issued the order of seizure and collection on July 24, 2012. The above order of collection was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, as of July 26, 2012.
On the other hand, before issuance of the instant collection order, ① D applied for the seizure and collection order on April 13, 2012 by requesting the seizure and collection order of the claim to be transferred to the provisional seizure to the provisional seizure as the court 2012 other debt 3051, with the amount of claim KRW 9,04,868 as to the claim against the Defendant of the instant collection order. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on April 17, 2012.
② In addition, regarding C’s claim for the price of goods to the Defendant, E requested a provisional seizure and collection order on April 27, 2012, by using the claim amount as KRW 27,566,385, which is KRW 2012,00, which is the transfer of provisional seizure to the original seizure to the original seizure, and received a claim for the seizure and collection order on April 27, 2012. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on April 30, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Meanwhile, even if a collection order was issued several times with respect to the same claim, there is no order of priority between them. The creditor who collects the claim upon the receipt of the collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the execution order of the court of execution and is engaged in collection from the third debtor for all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution. Thus, the collection right is effective.