logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단55867
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion has 24,50,000 won and its delay damages claim against New Daily, Inc. (hereinafter “New Daily,”) based on the executory copy of the protocol of mediation holding the executory power of the loan claim case in this court 2015da2568.

The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on the claim for the lease-sale agency service payment amounting to KRW 25,054,519 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 24,500,000 from August 11, 2015 to August 27, 2015), which is equivalent to the principal and interest, etc. of the above claim (i.e., KRW 228,219 for delay damages from August 11, 2015 to KRW 326,30 for delay damages from August 27, 2015).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25,054,519 won and delay damages with the collection money.

2. In a lawsuit seeking the amount of collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that the Plaintiff’s sales contract for officetels or urban-type residential housing or neighborhood living facilities is concluded on April 15, 2013 (in the case of officetels and urban-type residential housing x monthly rent x 100). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that the Plaintiff’s sales contract for officetels or urban-type residential housing or neighborhood living facilities is concluded on April 15, 2013. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that the Plaintiff’s sales contract is concluded on an officetel or urban-type residential housing or neighborhood living facilities x 2,50,00 won per unit (in the case of officetels and urban-type residential housing x monthly rent x 100).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

arrow