logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.07 2017가단48810
양수금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3.

1) C) around 2010, around 2010, it is called “a company outside Korea” (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”).

(2) On August 23, 2012, C, based on the above claim, was determined as KRW 2,850,022,360 in this court’s amount claimed as KRW 2,850,02,360 on the basis of the above claim, and received a seizure and collection order as to the loan claims against the garnishee of the non-party company against the garnishee of the non-party company as of December 14, 2009.

The defendant, who is the third debtor, was served with the above order on August 28, 2012.

3) On March 13, 2014, C transferred a claim based on the original copy of the above notarial deed to the Plaintiff, and on December 22, 2014, C notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim by way of content-certified mail. (b) The Plaintiff, who received the claim from the collection obligee C, sought a payment of the money from the third obligor to the Defendant. However, even if the obligee transferred the claim based on the title after the creditor received the seizure and collection order based on the title, if the transferee of the claim did not receive the execution clause against the existing title, it cannot be deemed that the obligee has the ability to collect the seized claim as the executor’s position (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da32310, Aug. 11, 2008). In this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right of execution as long as there is no proof as to whether C received the seizure and collection order based on the original copy of the notarial deed, and as to the status of the obligee’s entitlement to the existing execution clause.

2. Conclusion, the instant lawsuit is brought by a person who is not qualified as a party.

arrow