logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.21 2016나2018058
약정금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of the liquor wholesale business, and the Defendant is a corporation that operates a “F hotel” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Nonparty B and C are those who operate a “DN club” in the trade name, “DN club” (hereinafter “instant age club”) by leasing FM underground floors from the Defendant.

B. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the case No. 568 on May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive loans and goods from B and C, and based on the executory exemplification of the authentication of the case No. 568 on the document No. 568 on the 2009, a notary public issued an order of seizure and assignment of claims for KRW 600,000 among the claims for return of lease deposit against B with the Defendant as the obligor, the Defendant as the third obligor, and a notary public issued an order of seizure and assignment of claims for KRW 600,000 among the claims for return of lease deposit against B, based on the executory exemplification of the authentication of the case No. 845 on the 2010, No. 845 on the 2010, a notary public issued an order of seizure and assignment of claims to the Defendant as the obligor and the Defendant as the third obligor, and issued an order of seizure and assignment of each of the above claims to the Defendant.

(2) Subsequent to the Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deeds in the case No. 568 of the 2009 Act No. 568, Dec. 26, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an order to seize and seize the claim amounting to KRW 90,000,000, out of the lease deposit return claims against the Defendant in the Defendant in the Suwon District Court, the Defendant as the garnishee, and the Defendant as the third obligor; and the said notary public has the executory power in the case No. 845 of the 2010 Act No. 845 of the 2010 Act.

arrow