logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나7962
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around August 28, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with DMD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DMD Construction”) under which the construction cost of the instant subcontracted construction (hereinafter “instant subcontracted construction”) was KRW 814,00,000, and the construction period was determined from August 28, 2012 to November 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

B. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of KRW 18,955,332 out of the subcontract price claim against the Defendant in the case of DMD Construction as Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TTTT12593, which was based on the executory order for the execution of the order for payment for goods payment in the JMD Construction, which was the High Government District Court 2013j769, the High Court 2010, the Seoul East District Court 2014. The Plaintiff reached the Defendant on August 6, 2014.

(hereinafter, the above seizure and collection order is "the seizure and collection order of the corresponding claim"). 【The ground for recognition has no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 18,955,32 of the subcontract price of this case to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, according to the seizure and collection order of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the claim for the subcontract price of this case against the Defendant of IMD Construction was not extinguished at the time when the seizure and collection order of this case was served to the Defendant.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the instant subcontract construction cost claim against the Defendant at the time of August 6, 2014, which was delivered to the Defendant by the seizure and collection order of the instant case, solely with the entries in Section A, No. 1, and No. 3-1 through No. 3, respectively.

arrow