beta
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 acknowledged by each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2, unless there is a dispute between the parties or by the Parties:
① On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the original construction company (hereinafter referred to as “original construction”), and issued a payment order to the effect that “the debtor (original construction) shall pay to the creditor (the Plaintiff) 25,540,000 won an annual interest rate of 20% from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the date after the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, and the payment order was finalized on February 4, 2014.”
② On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a provisional attachment and a collection order to transfer the provisional attachment to the Daegu District Court resident support for the provisional attachment upon the above payment order, and applied for a provisional attachment of KRW 25,540,00 among the claims stated in the attached Form 2013Kadan509, the Defendant as the garnishee, and the provisional attachment of KRW 25,540,00 among the claims stated in the attached Form 2013Kadan509, the Defendant as the garnishee, as the obligor, shall be transferred to the provisional attachment. Of the claims listed in the attached list, the remaining KRW 789,691 based on the above original copy shall not be paid to the obligor. The garnishee shall not be subject to the disposal and receipt of the above claims. The obligee may collect the above claims. The obligee received the seizure and collection order, and the above seizure and collection order was served to the Defendant around that time.
2. The plaintiff's assertion is obliged to pay the construction cost in direct payment for the original construction.
Therefore, the plaintiff, as a collection right holder, seek the payment of 26,329,691 won and damages for delay against the defendant.
3. As to the fact that the Defendant bears the obligation for the construction cost to the original construction, it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 3.