beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,334,773 as well as 6% per annum from September 20, 2018 to March 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D Co., Ltd.: (a) on August 22, 2018, established E by dividing a part of it by physical division pursuant to Articles 530-2 through 530-12 of the Commercial Act.
(B) In combination with D Co., Ltd. prior to the division (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
From July 14, 2017 to June 30, 2018, Nonparty Company supplied 70,334,773 stuffs to the Defendant. Upon delay in the payment of the above goods, Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the suspension of the transaction of goods on July 2018.
C. The Plaintiff, based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed of transfer for security (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) signed by a notary public from the non-party company by the Ulsan District Public Prosecutor's Office, No. 270, 2018, held against the Defendant by the non-party company with the claim for the price of goods at KRW 817,476,752 against the non-party company as the preserved right.
The claim attachment and assignment order of KRW 70,334,773 as stated in the claim was filed with the Daejeon District Court. On September 17, 2018, Daejeon District Court rendered a claim attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) stating that “the above claim against the defendant of the company outside the Seoul District is attached to the plaintiff in lieu of the payment of the plaintiff’s claim for the price for the goods to the non-party company, and the above order was served on the defendant on September 19, 2018, and became final and conclusive on November 2, 2018.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above basic facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the full amount of KRW 70,344,773 and delay damages.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that it is impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim due to the claim set-off against the Nonparty Company, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s claim against the Nonparty Company. Therefore, the above assertion
C. Sub-decisions.