(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.13 2014나11086

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.13 2014나11086

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. On June 22, 201, B determined as to the cause of the claim: (a) a lease contract with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 21,50,000 and the period from March 2012 to April 30, 2014; (b) a lease contract for the lease deposit of KRW 21,50,000 is concluded between around that time and around March 2012; (c) the Plaintiff was subject to a dispute between the parties concerned; and (d) comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of subparagraph 1; (d) the Plaintiff was issued with the Ulsan District Court Decision 2004Da12021 delivered on November 27, 201, based on the original copy of the performance recommendation decision of the Defendant’s new construction, and the seizure and collection order of KRW 21,50,000 and KRW 21,300 among the lease deposit of this case against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

According to the above facts, the lease has expired on April 30, 2014, barring any special circumstances, and the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 9,640,349, out of the above lease deposit to the plaintiff according to the seizure collection order in this case.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that since the defendant received the notice of the transfer of the above lease deposit claim prior to the delivery of the seizure collection order of this case, he cannot comply with the plaintiff's collection. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement in the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 5, B, upon the whole purport of the pleading, may recognize the fact that Eul transferred the above lease deposit claim to the king Saemaul Community Fund on September 3, 2013, and delegated the authority to notify the transfer of the assignment of the claim, by notifying the defendant of the fact of the transfer of the claim on behalf of B by the contents-certified mail, and that the above notice has been delivered to the defendant around that time. As such, the defendant prior to the delivery of the seizure collection

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나20018

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.11.14 2017가단4395

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.09.18 2018가단2686

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.04 2019가단49039

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가합21900