logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나34823
추심금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) ELMT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELM”)

(2) On March 30, 2015, KRW 2015, KRW 1990, KRW 12,000, KRW 24,700, KRW 205,180, the Plaintiff received each seizure and collection order from the Defendant, based on an executory exemplification of a notarial deed, with respect to the above claim for the price of the goods against the Defendant MEL and the third obligor (hereinafter “instant claim for the price of the goods”). On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received each seizure and collection order from the Defendant around the date of each order, and each seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount of KRW 24,705,180 to the plaintiff as the collection obligee, unless there are special circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that LIM has a claim for the purchase price of KRW 28,000,000 against the Defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the exceeding part recognized above.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Defendant’s defense 1) The Defendant did not return the gold form produced at the Defendant’s expense. As such, there was a damage claim equivalent to KRW 49,428,830 of the gold production cost for LIM with respect to LIM, which offsets the claim for the payment of the instant goods, the Defendant asserted that there was no claim for the payment of the instant goods. 2) The Defendant asserted to the effect that MIM transferred the instant claim for the payment of the instant goods to MELS Co., Ltd. before the issuance of the seizure and collection order.

B. First of all, we examine the defendant's defense that the claim for the price of the goods of this case was transferred before delivering the seizure and collection order.

arrow