logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.05.18 2016가합55230
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 358,191,781 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 28, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that, while filing a lawsuit against the Jung-gu District Court Decision 2014Gahap58617, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the development of oil from Jung-gu.

On June 11, 2015, the above court accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion, and sentenced the Plaintiff to “YYN 470,000,000 won and damages for delay thereof,” and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B) On February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, with the executory exemplification of the judgment in the foregoing case as the executive title, received a claim seizure and collection order from the Jung-gu District Court 2016TTTTTTE 508,191,781 among the claim for prohibition of the judgment in the case No. 2013Gahap4927 against the Defendant of U.S. Development as the executive title, and the decision was served on the Defendant on February 18, 2016 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

(2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as the District Court Decision 2013Kahap4927, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent because it occupied and used his/her own real estate without title. On August 31, 2016, the lower court rendered a judgment on the following purport: (a) on the following grounds: “Surri Development has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant: (b) although the Defendant had a claim for return of unjust enrichment; (c) on the grounds that there was no standing to be a party; (d) the seizure and collection order of the instant case and the seizure and collection order of C were issued; and (e) the Defendant paid the remainder of unjust enrichment and delay damages after deducting the amount of claims seized only.” (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na208756, Aug. 25, 2017), the Defendant received the seizure and collection order of the instant case against the Defendant, having the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the collection order of the instant case.

arrow