beta
Text
1. From October 30, 2014 to August 30, 2016, the Defendant’s 45,909,900 won for the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor of the Plaintiff’s co-litigation and its related thereto.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 18, 2014, under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014TTT 2014T 4976, Plaintiff A received the claim attachment and collection order as to the amount of the above claim out of the amount equivalent to 66% of the sales proceeds of male class and miscellaneous (F) sales proceeds received each month from the Defendant, and the above collection order was served on the Defendant on March 28, 2014, with the Defendant and the third obligor KRW 460,575,348.
B. On April 3, 2014, as Seoul Central District Court 2014TTT10035, Plaintiff B received a seizure and collection order as to the amount of the claim, among the outstanding amounts equivalent to 66% of the sales proceeds of male and miscellaneous (F) received each month from the Defendant, by designating the debtor E and 3 debtor as the Defendant and the Plaintiff B’s claim amount as KRW 53,130,468 against the Defendant and the Plaintiff B’s claim amount as KRW 533,130,468. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on May 26, 2014.
C. On January 13, 2015, the Intervenor issued a claim attachment and collection order with respect to KRW 50 million among the claims for sales of goods supplied by E to the Defendant by the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court 2015TTTT 2015TTT 783, the Defendant, etc., and the third obligor as the Defendant and the Seoul Central District Court 2014TT 510,933,617. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on January 15, 2015.
Meanwhile, the Defendant entered into a product consignment sales agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with E from around 201 to run a “F-Government Agency” (hereinafter “instant agency”). On September 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a re-contract and an additional agreement between E and E during the contract period from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
According to this, the defendant has limited 34% of the consignment fees (agency closing) from the sales proceeds by the end of each month.