beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the spouse of C who worked as the factory site in B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and the representative director of B is C, the senior mother of C, and E who actually operates B is the deceased relationship of C.
B. On November 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued an assignment order and attachment order (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”) with respect to KRW 21 million out of the sales claims against the Defendant under the Incheon District Court Decision 2017TTT27428, Nov. 17, 2017, with executory power over B.
C. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant was served with the instant attachment order, and the said order became final and conclusive on December 8, 2017.
Meanwhile, sales claims against the Defendant in B incurred KRW 9,50,887 on August 2017, 2017, KRW 17,128,760 on September 2017, KRW 13,694,835 on October 2017, and KRW 5,948,140 on November 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, 7, 8, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the entire obligee, KRW 21 million, and delay damages therefrom in accordance with the instant seizure and assignment order, barring any special circumstances.
3. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant had already extinguished the entire claim due to payment before the effectiveness of the attachment and assignment order of this case.
In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence mentioned above and the following facts and circumstances revealed by the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the amount of KRW 9,500,887 among the sales claims against the defendant of this case, which occurred before November 23, 2017, was already extinguished due to repayment, since the aforementioned defense is reasonable within the extent of the above recognition.
E in fact has been substantially operated.