(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단13205

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단13205

추심금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,90,930 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 10, 2017 to November 30, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Multiury Law Firm drafted a notarial deed (Law Firm Multiurur No. 1320, 2016, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by designating the creditor as the Plaintiff and the debtor as an agricultural company (hereinafter “non-party company”).

B. On April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff issued the order of seizure and collection (hereinafter “instant collection order”) on the following grounds: (a) the debtor, the third debtor, the Defendant, and the claim amount of KRW 120,000,000 (Defendant 100,000 won, C20,000), and (b) the claim list to be seized was stated as follows; (c) the said court issued the order of seizure and collection (hereinafter “instant collection order”) upon the said request.

In addition, the Defendant received the instant collection order on May 4, 2017.

The amount of money (the amount to be continuously deposited in the future) from among the above goods price to be paid by the non-party company to the defendant, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the price of the goods in this case") after the non-party company supplied cat cats, processed cats, etc. processed to the defendant, etc.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, out of the price of the goods of this case, according to the collection order of this case.

However, in a lawsuit claiming a collection amount, the existence of a claim shall be proved by the Plaintiff, the creditor of the collection, as a requisite fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). According to the overall purport of pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant was currently unable to pay KRW 63,90,930, out of the price of the instant goods to Nonparty Company.

Therefore, according to the collection order of this case, the defendant's 63,90,930 won and the following day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case filed by the plaintiff against the plaintiff according to the collection order of this case, the existence or scope of the defendant's duty to perform.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다47175 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.02.13 2018가단86258

-대전지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단13158

-수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017가단13010

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.14 2020가단12910

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.04.05 2017가단655