logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.02 2017나55800
양수금
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed by the exchange in this court.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B was sentenced on November 1, 2013 to C and D, “C and D shall jointly and severally pay 35,00,000,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from January 17, 2012 to November 1, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(Seoul High Court 2013Na2004294).B

B around April 1, 2014, the above judgment bond was transferred to E, and notified C and D of the above transfer on the same day.

C. On June 27, 2016, E received an assignment order (U.S. District Court 2016No. 104301) against “C’s claim amounting to KRW 600,000,000, which is a part of the claim amounting to KRW 56,086,30, as agreed on January 21, 2010,” and its decision became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016.

E transferred the claim to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2016, and notified the Defendant of the transfer on August 4, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion C and the Defendant’s agreement on January 21, 2010 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), “Where C fails to pay KRW 4,790,932,275 to the Defendant by February 10, 2010, the Defendant shall pay KRW 600 million to C at the time of receipt of intermediate payment after the sale of each of the instant land.”

As such, C’s claim against the Defendant under the instant agreement is an indefinite term, and the Defendant denies the Defendant’s claim against C under the instant agreement.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a whole holder of C’s claim against the Defendant, needs and benefits to be satisfied later by resolving the uncertainty of the claim against the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the same content as stated in C’s claim against the Defendant.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a)in litigation for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights;

arrow