beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant Teab Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 67,812,315 and its amount from December 2, 2016.
Reasons
1. The facts constituting the grounds for the attachment of the facts of recognition are as follows: Defendant TeaWn Co., Ltd., pursuant to Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Defendant EaWn Co., Ltd., without any dispute, may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective entries and arguments as set forth in subparagraphs A and 5.
Therefore, Defendant TeAWn Co., Ltd is obligated to pay 67,812,315 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 10, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and from December 2, 2016, Defendant EAWn Co., Ltd., U. S., Ltd., the amount of KRW 13,357,877, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date following the delivery
2. Determination on the assertion of Defendant EsPa fund
A. The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, since A’s summary of the assertion satisfied KRW 13,735,942 to the Plaintiff.
B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, the fact that A paid KRW 13,735,942 to the Plaintiff, who is the executing creditor, in relation to the seizure and collection order of the claim No. 2016T, Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT 5933.
However, the seizure and collection order related to the above repayment is separate from the seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 2015TT 16790) of this case where the plaintiff claims the collection of EPS as the garnishee, and it cannot be recognized that the execution claim of the seizure and collection order of this case was extinguished solely on the facts recognized as above. In addition, the non-existence or extinction of the execution claim of this case cannot be recognized as the execution claim of this case. The non-existence or extinction of the execution claim of this case can not be denied by asserting that EPSB, the garnishee, the third debtor, as the execution debtor, raised the grounds for asserting in the lawsuit demanding objection, and it cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). The argument of the defendant EPS corporation in this case cannot be accepted.
3.