(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.12 2019가단114696

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.12 2019가단114696

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 26,000,00 to D, and D agreed to pay to the Plaintiff in installments in 26 months from February 16, 2013 to March 16, 2015, in addition to delay damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum for the delayed principal.

D and the Plaintiff drafted a monetary loan agreement stating the foregoing contents, and received the authentication from the E-Law Firm Certificate No. 26 on January 15, 2013.

B. The plaintiff A.

Based on the notarial deed stated in the Paragraph, D applied for a seizure and collection order under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018TTT116010, which was the benefit claim that D received as the debtor, the defendant as the third debtor, and the defendant's employee, and received as the defendant's employee, and was issued a ruling of the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the collection order of this case") on October 4, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D concluded an employment contract with the Defendant and served as the employee of the Defendant. Accordingly, based on the instant collection order, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount, such as the written claim stated in the purport of

B. In light of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the statement of evidence No. 4 alone entered into a labor contract with the defendant and received benefits from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D If it is difficult to recognize the existence of the claim subject to the collection order of this case against the Defendant, i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the existence of the claim subject to the seizure, is without merit, without examining the remaining points.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.12 2019가단114696

-수원지방법원평택지원 2019.08.22 2019가단1102

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.17 2017가합74613

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단64362

-수원지방법원 2018.06.12 2017가단26634