beta
Text
1. The construction price of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) at the Suwon-si District Court, the Suwon-si Court, 2016 tea618.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. On October 7, 2016, the Defendant issued the above order on October 7, 2016 by filing an application for the attachment and assignment order of claim against Nonparty C based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board KRW 40,000,000 in the claim amount against Nonparty C, which is KRW 2014 Gohap4004, 4004 in the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board.
(2) The Defendant applied for the payment order of KRW 40,000,000 to the Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court 2016 tea618) based on the instant claim attachment and assignment order, and the Defendant applied for the payment order of KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff as of November 18, 2016. The said payment order was served on the Plaintiff as of November 18, 2016, and was finalized around that time.
(3) The Defendant filed an application for the auction of movable properties in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff with the title of execution for the final payment order in this case. (3) The Cheongju District Court 2017No. 243 regarding movable properties in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “Compulsory Execution of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The parties to this case does not have any dispute between them, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the issues are as follows: (1) The Plaintiff’s claim and the part payments of KRW 40,000,000 as of June 10, 2016 (hereinafter “the part payments refund claim of KRW 40,000,00 following the cancellation of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”); and (2) the part payments of KRW 40,000,000, which are the subject of the instant claim attachment and assignment order against the Plaintiff was not a party to the said sales contract; and (3) Nonparty C paid the part payments of KRW 40,00,000, which is the part payments of KRW 40,000, which is alleged by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, since there is no claim to return the intermediate payment of this case against the plaintiff of the non-party C, which is the entire claim against the seizure and assignment order of this case, this case is premised on this.