(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.20 2013가단238375

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.20 2013가단238375

추심금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff received a collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from a notary public based on the No. 401, 201, the notarial deeds under a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deeds”) issued by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2013TTB13, Apr. 11, 2013, the Plaintiff received the obligee’s “Plaintiff”, “D”, “third obligor”, “Defendant”, “the amount claimed as KRW 1,60,026,30 out of the partial amount of the loan,” “a claim against the Defendant”, “a claim against the seized claim, wage and retirement allowance claim”, and the collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was corrected by the court 2013Ka2766.

B. The instant order of seizure and collection was served on April 17, 2013 on the Defendant, the garnishee, and the decision of correction was served on April 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the collection of the instant amount on the premise that D’s claims against the Defendant have the ability to collect.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit should be dismissed, since the part of the collection order among the collection order was revoked, and the Plaintiff no longer has the ability to collect.

B. Therefore, in the case of this case pertaining to enforcement, the Seoul Central District Court E, taking full account of the overall purport of pleadings, collects a collection order of this case on November 21, 2016, and a collection order of this case on November 21, 2016, where there exists a seizure and collection order of the claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim. However, in the case where the execution court cancels the seizure and collection order of the relevant claim, the creditor's right to collect is extinguished.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.05.23 2017가단223306

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.11 2017가단28788

-대법원 2014.08.20 2014다19059

-대법원 2010. 11. 25. 선고 2010다64877 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.08 2015나57712