beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the 29,792,812 won and the damages for delay shall be dismissed.
2. Of the instant lawsuit, the superior thereto.
Reasons
1. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff was entitled to KRW 445,00,000 for construction work for constructing a new car center and multi-family house (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) from the Defendant on the land of Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, as the construction cost. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff completed construction of the instant building and received KRW 351,660,000 out of the construction cost, and only received KRW 351,660,000 from the Defendant and received KRW 93,340,000 from the Defendant.
The defendant is obligated to pay the remaining construction cost to the plaintiff.
2. Determination
(a) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection obligee may institute a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to institute a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim;
(Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888 delivered on April 11, 2000). B.
In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 17-1 and 2-2, the plaintiff's creditor-creditor D shall request the Daegu District Court 2018TTTTB to seize claims for KRW 63,547,188 out of the construction price bonds in this case as the Daegu District Court 2018TTTB 107297, and shall obtain the decision of acceptance on July 19, 2018, and the above decision was served on the defendant. ② The plaintiff's creditor-creditored educational foundation filed a seizure and collection order for claims for KRW 59,464,261 out of the construction price bonds in this case as the Daegu District Court 2018TTB 201, and received the decision on November 26, 2018, and it is recognized that the above decision was served on the defendant.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff's claim for this part of the construction price claim of this case as to ① KRW 63,547,188, which is the amount corresponding to an assignment order, and its delay damages, was not the plaintiff's creditor. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part of this case is without merit, and ② the amount in excess of the whole order (= 29,792,812 (= 93,340,000 - 63,547,188) and its delay damages) have lost the plaintiff's standing to be a party in accordance with the collection order.