(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.13 2019나4721 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2019.12.13 2019나4721

추심금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the objective of manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of the stetrare board and the stetrare building parts. The Defendant is a company with the objective of manufacturing, assembling and selling electronic components, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of manufacturing, assembling and selling, and the company B (hereinafter “non-party company”) located in Chungcheongnam-Namsan is a company with the objective of metal processing, etc.

B. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the non-party company for the payment of KRW 19,888,646 for the amount of unpaid goods and the amount of damages for delay [the U.S. District Court 2018Guj236]. On the same day, the Plaintiff received the payment order from the above court, and the said payment order was finalized on May 5, 2018.

C. On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) applied for the attachment and collection order against KRW 16,445,199 (the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2018TTanche4824); (b) on June 25, 2018, the Plaintiff received a decision accepting the above request (hereinafter “instant order for attachment and collection”); and (c) the written decision was served on the Defendant on June 27, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7 evidence (including each number in case of additional number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 16,445,199 and the delay damages therefrom in accordance with the collection order and seizure of the instant claim.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant did not have any transaction of goods with the non-party company and thus, there is no obligation against the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the existence of a claim against the

3. On the other hand, in a suit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007).

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다47175 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.12.18 2019가단10250

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.09.27 2016가단161

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.10.25 2016가단2442

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.30 2019가단6854

-청주지방법원 2016.08.31 2016가단100355