(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.29 2017가단315778

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) 부산지방법원 2018.11.29 2017가단315778

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to “the amount up to KRW 230,000,000, out of the claimed amount of the charge for the sale (service) of the building in Busan-gu Seoul-do, which a company outside Korea has against the Defendant, out of the charge for the sale (service) of the building in lots in Busan-do, as the title of the authentic copy of the authentic copy of the authentic copy of the law office of Jung-gu, Law Firm Jung-gu, Inc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted-si”), to the Plaintiff.

B. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee on May 18, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, despite the remaining amount of KRW 27450,00,000 of the sales agency fee to be paid to the non-party company, paid it to the non-party company unfairly D.

Therefore, this cannot be viewed as a legitimate repayment to the non-party company, so there is still a claim for the sales agency fee to be paid by the defendant to the non-party company.

Therefore, according to the collection order of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 31 million including the above money and delay damages.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and witness D’s testimony, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has a claim for the sales agency fee against the Defendant of the non-party company at the time of receipt of the instant collection order, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is rejected.

① On January 17, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 198 million to the sales agency fee under the sales agency contract for the C building concluded between the non-party company.

2. The defendant paid to D.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.01.24 2013가단71353

-서울고등법원 2016. 08. 18. 선고 2015누68583 판결

-수원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018가단534125

-수원지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단52496

-대전지방법원 2017.10.26 2016가단209099