logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.17 2015나2036400
추심금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4 (the same as Eul evidence No. 1), and Eul evidence No. 3 as a whole for the whole purport of the pleadings, or are significant in this Court:

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Gahap10144, Oct. 7, 2011, the said court rendered to B that the Defendant shall pay to B the sum of KRW 1,345,750,000 for the settlement amount pursuant to the loan settlement agreement and KRW 64,042,344 for damages incurred until December 31, 2007 and KRW 1,409,792,792,344 for the principal and KRW 1,345,750,000 for the principal and KRW 23% per annum from January 1, 2008 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant performance judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is (hereinafter “instant performance judgment”).

B. Based on the executory order of the instant performance judgment held by the obligor B against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order of the claim to be transferred to the provisional attachment as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2014Da2278, Sept. 11, 2014; and the original copy of the seizure and collection order of the claim was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on September 15, 2014, as the amount of the claim amount to KRW 20,396,402,560 among the claims arising from the instant performance judgment held by the obligor B against the Defendant by the obligor B.

2. The Plaintiff requested the payment of the collection amount to the Defendant as the collection obligee based on the above seizure and collection order.

On the other hand, a creditor who collects a claim with the approval of a collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the authorization of a court of execution and is engaged in the collection from a third debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29937, Jan. 13, 2005). Thus, a creditor who collects a claim with the approval of a collection order is not represented by, or subrogated to, the debtor's right necessary for the collection of

arrow