beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 5, 2019, Nonparty E (F) entered into a contract to transfer credit sales claims against the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the repayment of KRW 45,571,257 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer of the instant claim”) and on July 22, 2020, Nonparty E notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim.
B. On September 7, 2020 between one E and the defendant, the Seoul Central District Court 2020 Ghana 5178938 decided to recommend settlement that "the defendant's obligation to pay the goods based on the standard goods price to E shall not exceed 58,918,859 won" (hereinafter "decision to recommend settlement of this case"). The decision to recommend settlement of this case was finalized on September 24, 2020.
(c)
On the other hand, on October 21, 2020, the Defendant deposited KRW 59,282,057 under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) on the ground that there was a large number of claims transfer, provisional seizure, etc. against E with respect to the obligation to the settlement of this case. The Defendant deposited KRW 59,282,057 under the jurisdiction of the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).
【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】 The evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2-6, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 5-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired E's claim the amount stated in the purport of the claim and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant deposited the obligation based on the recommendation of reconciliation of this case on the grounds that the provisional attachment, seizure, transfer of claims, etc. were concurrent before and after the notification of the transfer of claims of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of the transfer was extinguished
(c)
Judgment
According to the facts acknowledged above, the defendant deposited KRW 59,282,057 of the price of the goods by the decision of recommending the settlement of this case, and the plaintiff of this case.