logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.08.25 2014가단45692
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 30,204,040 and its related amount on December 31, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty A Automatic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) agreed to pay the price at KRW 168,280,00,000, and KRW 169,080,000,000,000 on July 43, 2013, to the Defendant (Seoul Co., Ltd., Ltd.) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) for the first time. The Defendant agreed to pay the price at KRW 24% per annum on Nov. 25, 2013, on August 20, 2013.

B. After the above, the defendant was due and payable until the above date.

As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to repay the debt indicated in the claim, between December 5, 2013 and December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was against the Defendant’s non-party company.

Of the obligations stated in the port, 30,204,040 won was subrogated by the non-party company, and on December 26, 2014, the non-party company was the defendant against the plaintiff.

Of the claims described in paragraph (1), the above 30,204,04,040 won and interest thereon were transferred to the Defendant on the same day, and the fact of the assignment of claims was sent to the Defendant as a content certification, and the above content certification reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 12 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As seen earlier on December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the non-party company the claim for 30,204,04,040 won and interest thereon out of the sales price of the vehicle against the Defendant of the non-party company. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the primary claim. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff subrogated the Defendant to the non-party company prior to the acquisition of the claim by the non-party company, and thus, the claim subject to the transfer is already extinguished. Thus, the above assertion on the Plaintiff’s primary claim premised on the existence of the claim for transfer is without merit.

3. We examine the judgment on the conjunctive claim. The plaintiff is the non-party company in subrogation of the defendant between December 5, 2013 and December 30 of the same month.

arrow