beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, who engages in construction machinery leasing business, applied for a payment order of KRW 20,35,000 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “C”) for the payment order for construction machinery rent from January 5, 2019 to June 2019. On November 6, 2019, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 20,355,000 won with interest of KRW 12% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the payment order to the day of full payment.” The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time (Seoul Branch Branch Court Branch Branch 1518). The Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order for KRW 30,35,350,00 from the Defendant on November 5, 2019 to the Defendant on the provisional attachment order for KRW 20,350,000 from the date of delivery of the payment order to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant may receive the payment order for KRW 15,50,00 from the Defendant D Corporation 1, 2019.
Based on the original copy of the above order of payment, the Plaintiff stated C as KRW 20,35,000 in the above order of payment order of KRW 20,35,00 among the bonds issued by the provisional attachment order of claim 1955, but it appears to be a clear clerical error of KRW 20,35,000 in the above order of payment order of KRW 20,35,000 among the bonds issued by the Suwon District Court for provisional attachment order of claim 20,35,000.
Upon receipt of a decision of seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the decision of this case”) stating that the provisional seizure against A shall be transferred to this seizure, and the remaining KRW 321,218 shall be seized. The above decision was served on the Defendant as the third debt manager on January 6, 2020 (which was based on recognition / [the grounds for recognition] / The fact that there is no dispute between Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2019 and 9944], the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant bears the obligation for construction cost against C, and the Plaintiff is from the Defendant on September 11, 2019.