logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.04.02 2014가합6073
배당이의
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part to expand the purport of the claim of KRW 109,235,412 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order (No. 2013Kahap133, Jeju District Court Decision) against the claim for refund of lease deposit (hereinafter “the claim for refund of lease deposit of this case”) based on the lease agreement between the debtor F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), the garnishee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the third debtor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the amount of USD 262,780.13, which is the damage compensation claim due to nonperformance of the performance bond payment obligation, and the Plaintiff was served on G.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F seeking payment of USD 249,780.13 of performance fees and delay damages therefor, and won the entire judgment on July 18, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 27, 2013.

(The Jeju District Court 2013 Gohap5219, hereinafter referred to as the "Prior Judgment"). (c)

On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2013TTT 5692) regarding the claim to claim the refund of the lease deposit of this case as US$274,046.43, based on the preceding judgment, and the said order was served on G.

On July 22, 2013, Defendant B received a seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2013TTT 4489) against the claim amounting to KRW 511,813,531 on the basis of the Notarial Deed No. 394, 2013, which was executed by a notary public against F on July 22, 2013. The above decision was served to G.

E. On March 26, 2013, Defendant C received a seizure and collection order (No. 272,684,931) regarding the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case based on the notarial deed with the executory power of No. 614, 2012, which was executed by the notary public against F on March 26, 2013, as to the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, and the said decision was served on G.

(f) Defendant D, on January 29, 2014, the debtor F, third debtor G;

arrow