(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.04 2017가단72130

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) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.04 2017가단72130

청구이의

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 October 30, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for the purchase price against the Plaintiff, etc., and received a judgment against the Plaintiff, etc., stating that “Defendant A fisheries partnership (the Plaintiff in this case) shall pay to the Plaintiff (the Defendant in this case) 124,685,029 won per annum from May 1, 2010 to April 18, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as an appeal and dismissal.

B. C and D, the Defendant’s creditor, filed an application for each of the instant judgment claims against the Plaintiff under this Court No. 2017TT No. 115 and 2017TTT2747, and each of the cited decisions was served on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “each of the instant orders for seizure and collection.” On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. claiming unjust enrichment (hereinafter “ separate lawsuit”) under the court’s 2017da71045.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 4 and 9 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, from the amount of the judgment claim of this case, the amount of collection according to the collection order of this case should be deducted from the amount of the judgment claim of this case, and the amount of the separate lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant should be deducted from the total amount of KRW 181,294,638, the amount of the separate lawsuit filed by the plaintiff does not remain. Thus, compulsory execution according to the judgment

However, the confirmation of a collection order does not constitute a ground for objection to a claim, on the ground that the claim is extinguished or it does not lose its effect, unlike the case of repayment deposit, etc. on the ground of the confirmation of an assignment order or the competition of seizure.

In addition, the fact that the plaintiff filed a separate suit against the defendant is compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.22 2017가단26462

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.21 2016가단5006876

-수원지방법원 2020.02.20 2017나84945

-수원지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가합76608