logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.09.22 2015가단231010
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 51,795,016 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 20, 2015 to September 22, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party Young Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party Co., Ltd.”) seeking payment of goods with the Incheon District Court 2015Kadan21348, and won the judgment. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the above judgment is the executive title of this case).

On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, based on the title of execution of the instant case, issued a seizure and collection order as to the claim against the non-party company and the third debtor up to KRW 40,00,000 out of the claim amount of the present and future goods out of the claim amount to be paid by the non-party company as the price for goods from the third debtor, under the Incheon District Court 2015TTB0391, which made the debtor the non-party company and the third debtor as the defendant and one other, and received the seizure and collection order as to the claim against the non-party company up to KRW 40,00,000

(hereinafter referred to as the "first seizure and collection order").

Then, on October 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a goods transaction contract with the Defendant with the non-party company, Incheon District Court Decision 2015TTTT 27159 on October 5, 2015, and received a seizure and collection order as to the claim from the non-party company to KRW 11,795,016 out of the amount of the claim that the non-party company is to receive as the price for the goods from the third debtor, and served on the Defendant, the third debtor, on October 8, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as "second seizure and collection order"). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6, and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As of July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was liable for the payment of the unpaid goods to the Nonparty Company, and even thereafter, the Defendant was obligated to pay the sales price of KRW 687,959,374 to the Nonparty Company, even if supplied a large number of goods from the Nonparty Company based on the tax invoice amount.

arrow