logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.24 2018가단5274116
추심금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On the basis of the executory order of the transfer money case No. 2016 tea8225 against Nonparty C, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) regarding the amount of the claim, out of the amount of the claim to be deposited or to be deposited in the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number D) in the name of the Defendant against the Defendant, as the Incheon District Court 2018TT29 KRW 191,612,759, Dec. 14, 2018, with the amount claimed as KRW 191,612,759, against the Defendant.

B. On December 19, 2018, the instant order of seizure and collection was served on the Defendant.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's gist of the plaintiff's assertion is the creditor against the non-party C who holds the claim based on the original copy of the payment order stated in the above basic facts. Since C received the seizure and collection order concerning the claim to return the money stated in the above basic facts against the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim according to the seizure and collection order

3. Determination

A. In a case where there is a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, this is limited to the right to collect a monetary claim against a third party obligor in the compulsory execution procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73490, Mar. 9, 2001). Since the existence of a claim against a third party obligor is not confirmed, the collection obligee is liable to prove the existence of a claim against a third party obligor in the lawsuit claiming the collection amount.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476, Jun. 11, 2015). A seized claim specified in the seizure and collection order of this case is either deposited in the bank account (Account Number D) in the name of the defendant who is the debtor, against the defendant, or deposited in the future.

arrow