(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.11.12 2014가합3487

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) 제주지방법원 2015.11.12 2014가합3487

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

The defendant was awarded a successful bid on the ground of the building C at Jeju City (hereinafter “the building of this case”). Since the defendant arbitrarily removed and disposed of the equipment equivalent to KRW 200,000,000 at the market price owned by the plaintiff while inside the building of this case, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 200,000 and damages for delay.

On May 26, 2015, the Seoul Western District Court No. 2015TTTTT 2015TT 5871 and the order was served on the defendant with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 47,539,726 out of the amount that the plaintiff was paid by the defendant as a lawsuit against the defendant in this court 2014Gahap3487 against the defendant.

Therefore, while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the Plaintiff lost the ability to exercise the claim of this case by means of the above seizure and collection order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

Judgment

1) If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The obligor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. Thus, not only where the obligor files a lawsuit for performance against the third obligor only after the collection order was issued, but also where the obligor has filed a lawsuit for performance first before the order was issued, it shall be dismissed as it is unlawful and unlawful as the lawsuit for performance filed by the obligor by the non-party to the lawsuit for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200, etc.). Considering the following: (a) No. 2014Gahap3487, supra; and (b) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to No. 2, the Plaintiff’s creditor shall be the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for performance against the Defendant, as a lawsuit for damages against the Defendant, and thus, the seizure and seizure of the claim against the Plaintiff’s money received from the Defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.12.21 2015나20978

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.24 2016가합511769 (1)

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.24 2014가단29596

-서울동부지방법원 2019.05.17 2017나27015

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.19 2019나207425