logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단22840
전부금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff lent money to C, and a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption with No. 167 of 2011.

B. On the basis of the above notarial deed, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the garnishee in relation to the obligor’s lending of KRW 40,00,000 to the third obligor on March 30, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the Seoul Western District Court 2014Da43611, the obligor withdraws the lawsuit, and the third obligor filed an order for the seizure and assignment of the claim with the obligor’s claim amounting to KRW 40,00,000,000 among the loan claims against the third obligor, and the third obligor filed an order for the attachment and assignment of the claim amount until the above claim amount reaches the above amount among the loan claims against the third obligor. On March 10, 2015, the obligation attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) was issued to the Defendant on March 10, 2015, and the assignment order of this case became final and conclusive to the Defendant on March 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant agreed to pay C KRW 40,000,000 with respect to the loan obligation against C, and the plaintiff received the above claim against C. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant agreed to pay C KRW 20,000,000, and actually paid C the above money on December 23, 2014, the Defendant asserted that C’s claim against C, which is the entire claim subject to the assignment order of this case, was extinguished by payment prior to the issuance of the assignment order of this case.

B. Therefore, we look at whether C’s claim against the Defendant exists at the time of the instant assignment order, and seem to correspond thereto.

arrow