beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso81357 Decided August 30, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order with the claim amount of KRW 20 million as the creditor of Emnobian Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Embian Company”). On November 16, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court issued a seizure and collection order with the claim amount of KRW 20 million, and on November 19, 2015, the aforementioned court issued a seizure and collection order with the purport that the Defendant may seize the claim amount of the construction cost claim of the DaMomo Construction Corporation located in Osan-si, the Plaintiff of the company, from the claim amount of the construction cost of the DoMomo Construction Corporation, until the claim amount is collected by the Defendant. The original copy of the decision was served on the Plaintiff on November 19, 2015
B. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant filed a claim for collection against the Plaintiff, seeking payment of the amount of claims seized in the instant case and its delay damages, with the same court (2016 Ghana81357), and the same year.
8. 16. The same year after the pleading has been closed;
8. On June 1, 2016, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 20 million with interest of KRW 15% per annum from June 1, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment in this case”) was rendered and finalized.
C. E, as a creditor of the non-party company, filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT 108203 with the amount claimed as the creditor of the non-party company as KRW 315 million, and the above court issued a seizure and collection order with the purport that E may collect the above seized claim on August 25, 2016.
On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million with the Seoul Central District Court 20959 in accordance with Article 248(1) and (4) of the Civil Execution Act and reported the reasons for deposit on the ground that “the Plaintiff had the obligation to pay KRW 20 million to the non-party company as seen earlier, but the seizure between the Defendant and E was concurrent.”
(e) this;