logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.25 2019가단512498
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 95,041,340 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from March 23, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiff seized an amount equal to KRW 251,573,000, out of the construction price claim that B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) owns against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant on July 23, 2018.

B. On April 30, 2019, the Defendant deposited KRW 95,041,340 as Suwon District Court No. 4134 in 2019, pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s seizure, collection order, provisional seizure, etc. of other creditors, including the Plaintiff’s seizure, competes with each other’s seizure and collection order, provisional seizure, etc. (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 95,041,340 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. 1) The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's obligation was extinguished due to the deposit of this case. 2) The third debtor is liable for delay from the day following the issuance of a collection order after receiving a claim for collection money from the execution creditor.

(2) In cases where a third-party obligor is liable for damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 23, 2019 following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case to April 30, 2019 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22700, Jul. 22, 2004). According to the foregoing, the entire amount of the obligation that the Defendant has to deposit is liable to deposit is the total amount of obligation, and the deposit is not effective as to the deposited portion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22700, Jul. 22, 2004). Accordingly, the entire amount of the obligation that the Defendant has to deposit is not only KRW 95,041,340,000, but also KRW 95,041,340, a deposit shall not be deemed to have been made in full as the principal and deposited amount.

arrow