Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s Panel Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) against the Plaintiff was a transport fee case of 2019 tea 1896.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells motor vehicle gold, etc., and the defendant is a company that carries on cargo transport business.

The Defendant entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the transportation of gold, etc. manufactured by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s customer; from March 26, 2019 to October 30, 2019, the transportation amount which was not paid by the Plaintiff was KRW 190,46,600; filed an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of freight charges under the court No. 201896, Dec. 18, 2019; and on December 13, 2019, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”); however, on December 26, 2019, the payment order was issued to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 190,46,600 and its delayed payment and its delayed payment,” and the payment order was issued to the Plaintiff on December 26, 2019.

On November 27, 2019, the Defendant applied for provisional seizure against claims held by C, etc. by having part of the transport price claim against the Plaintiff as the right to be preserved, and received a provisional seizure order (this Court 2019Kadan2181) on November 27, 2019, and collected KRW 31,608,50 from the third obligor above on February 5, 2020 upon receipt of the provisional seizure order to transfer the provisional seizure to the title of execution, and the seizure and collection order (this Court 2020 TaT270) to the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 6, significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument that the defendant asserted the purport of the whole argument is merely the defendant's internal data without credibility. Thus, it is difficult to view that there exists a claim for the unpaid transport price, as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.

In this case, ex officio, whether an objection against the already collected portion is lawful.