logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2021.02.17 2019가단110375
추심금
Text

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D, etc. for damages with the Changwon District Court Heading 20154, and on October 11, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment with regard to D, “D jointly with Nonparty E and jointly with the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 2,565,30,000 and delayed damages therefrom,” and the part regarding D in the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 17, 2018.

B. On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order on the claim for the return of vehicle lease deposit held by D against the Defendants by the Changwon District Court 2017 Ma131, and thereafter issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) to transfer the above provisional attachment to 4704 as the instant provisional attachment on December 5, 2018, with the title of enforcement of the instant judgment as the title of execution.

On December 10, 2018, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the Defendants.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff collected the claim for the return of the vehicle lease deposit that D holds against the Defendants according to the instant collection order. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and delayed damages, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as part of the claim for the return of the vehicle lease deposit.

Since it is argued that "the existence of a claim to be collected in a gold collection lawsuit is a requisite fact, and the burden of proof is the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that D has a claim to return a vehicle lease deposit against the defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is added to the remainder.

arrow