(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.12 2019가단141914

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.12 2019가단141914

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with C for a payment order, and on February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff received a payment order with “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 145,00,000,000 and its delay damages.”

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2019j. 4383).b.

C On April 18, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff a document (Evidence A 2) stating that “D shall pay KRW 260 million to C,” a photograph bearing the document (Evidence A 2).

C. On May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim under “149,403,911 won for the obligor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, and the obligation to seize and collect”

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TTTT 55410. [Ground for Recognition], the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that C had a claim of KRW 145,00,000 against C, and C was confirmed to have a debt of KRW 2,60,000 from D, a director of the defendant's in-house, and received a claim attachment and collection order against C based on the above payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2019Hu4383). Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the claim of KRW 149,403,91 and damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that C was confirmed to have been liable for KRW 260 million by the Defendant’s internal director D, and submitted the message to C to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff cannot actually verify the document in the name of D as indicated in the above message, and the Defendant did not recognize the authenticity of the document in the name of D in the name of D. In addition, even if D was produced, it is difficult to view that such document may be legally liable for the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that is premised on the existence of claim against C against the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단17436

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가단129729

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2020.11.03 2020가단21963

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.09.18 2019나13450

-수원지방법원여주지원 2020.11.17 2020가단55911