(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단213762

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) 부산지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단213762

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in light of Gap evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 4, the whole purport of the pleadings, and there are no objections. A.

Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Busan District Court case 2013Gahap46453 (principal suit), 2014Gahap50572 (Counterclaim), the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order against B as to KRW 301,897,730, out of the outstanding bonds due to the supply of hardware from May 2013 to July 2013 to December 31, 2014 to the Defendant of B as Busan District Court 2014 Tado3392 (Counterclaim).

(1) On August 20, 2013, Busan District Court 2013.8.20,000 won is a claim to be transferred to provisional attachment of claim No. 2013Kahap1079 on August 20, 2013, and KRW 200,000 is a claim to be additionally seized).

On January 5, 2015, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the defendant.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, who is the garnishee of the above claim seizure and collection order, had the obligation to pay the money claimed as the collection amount to the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that the defendant had the obligation to pay the money claimed as the collection amount to the plaintiff. The defendant's goods payment obligation to the defendant Eul was KRW 71,525,080 until July 2013. Meanwhile, around that time, the defendant made a set-off agreement with the plaintiff as to each of the above claims between B and B as of July 31, 2013, since the claim against the defendant's goods payment obligation to the plaintiff was 102,650,90 won due to the delivery of the ship engine finished product, and therefore, the claim against the seizure and collection order had already expired before the delivery of the above claim to the defendant.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there exists a claim for the price of goods against the Defendant, who is the seized claim, at the time when the above claim attachment and collection order were served to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2014가단25953

-서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015나19287

-부산지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나44547

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단175763

-광주지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가단28492