Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) filed an order with the Seoul Central District Court to pay KRW 30 million against D to the effect that the Plaintiff claimed for the repayment of KRW 330 million loan against D (hereinafter “D”) and issued a payment order with the said court on May 28, 2013, stating that “D shall pay KRW 330 million to the Plaintiff and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant payment order”),” and the instant payment order was finalized on June 19, 2013.
(2) D’s monetary claim against the Defendant was partially won in the first instance trial by filing a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan against the Defendant, etc. (2005dahap25750). The case is continuing to be in the first instance trial after going through the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2006Na52510), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2008da44979, partial reversal), the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2008da4979, partial reversal), and the appellate court (2008Na974566).
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da38155). D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. to demand contributions with the Seoul Central District Court and rendered a judgment from the first instance to November 20, 201 that “the Defendant, etc. shall pay to D each of the KRW 91,092,431 after the completion of liquidation of the C Housing Association and the delay damages therefor,” and the Defendant, etc. appealed and continue the appellate trial (2009Gahap8728).
(C) On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 15 million and KRW 15 million, out of the loans returned by D as stated above against the Defendant on August 5, 2013, with the title of execution of the instant payment order. (3) The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 30 million, among the above loans refunded by D against the Defendant.
(Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT 22478). On August 8, 2013, the seizure and collection order was served on the defendant and became final and conclusive around that time.
(4) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff as the collection obligee.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion D and the Defendant on April 2012.