logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.03.24 2020가합2330
공탁금 출급청구권 확인 청구의 소
Text

The Defendants, among the 400,480,560 won deposited by Nonparty J on April 20, 2020 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 8868 of 2020, 52,380.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, C, D, F, G, and I

(a) the entry of the cause of the claim after the modification in the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by deeming the confession of the applicable legal provisions (Article 208(3)2, Article 150(3), and Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E and H

A. Basic facts 1) The J contracted the construction of Q hospital in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P to R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), and R subcontracted the said construction to the Plaintiff (the appointed party) and the first buyer (hereinafter “the Plaintiffs”).

2) On July 2019, R and the Plaintiffs entered into a contract for the transfer or takeover of claims (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”) that R would transfer to the Plaintiffs the claim for the payment of the construction cost that R would have received from J, and R’s notice of the transfer of claims to J was issued to J.

3) Defendant B, E, F, G, H, and I agreed on a direct payment of subcontract consideration between J and R. Defendant C and D received the R’s order of seizure and collection against the claim for the payment of the contract consideration against R, and the written decision was served to J.

4) The J and R agreed to settle the accounts after completion, but the unpaid construction cost was KRW 400,480,560.

5) As above, the J applied for a mixed deposit of KRW 400,480,560 due to the Seoul Central District Court No. 8868 in 2020, on the ground that there was a direct payment agreement on the payment of the deposit amount, a seizure and collection order, etc., and filed a request for the deposit of KRW 400,480,560 due to the non-payment under the proviso of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and the concurrent deposit of execution due to the concurrent seizure under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. On April 20, 2020, the above deposit was accepted (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

6) The depositarys to whom the instant deposit was made are parties to the instant case, and the rights relationship with the JJ of that parties;

arrow