logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2014가단32500
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 3, 2013, the payment order became final and conclusive that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 30 million won and 5% interest per annum from January 8, 2011 to August 19, 2013; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

Jincheon District Court 2013j 8613). (b)

1) On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for provisional attachment of the claim of KRW 30 million against the Defendant in B, and received the decision of the provisional attachment (Seoul District Court 2013Kadan11287) on August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the attachment and collection order of the claim amounting to KRW 34,615,067, and transferred the provisional attachment to the original attachment. On October 4, 2013, the court issued the order of attachment and collection on October 10, 2013.

Jincheon District Court 2013TTTY 30385).

From July 18, 2012 to January 9, 2014, the Defendant received the notification of provisional seizure, seizure, and collection order concerning the obligation for construction price to B as indicated below.

On July 18, 2012, C66,912,601 provisional seizure (Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan2765) 1's claim amount (Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan2765) 1's claim amount and provisional seizure (Seoul Central District Court 2013 Tada 5621) 26 February 26, 2013, provisional seizure (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan2532), D78,890,5483's provisional seizure (Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kadan1287) 34,615,067's provisional seizure, and provisional seizure order (Seoul District Court 2013Kadan1287) 34,013,203 14,2013 1,341,2013 1,413,2014) 13,2013.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant, on June 17, 2014, did not pay the construction price as the Seoul Central District Court No. 1272 on the ground that there were concurrences with multiple claims regarding the obligation to pay the construction price against B, such as a provisional seizure order, a seizure and collection order.

arrow