logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.07.11 2018가합53323
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts recognized;

A. On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Changwon District Court No. 2017 tea5305 to request the Plaintiff to pay the amount of reimbursement pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement, and “B shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 209,153,593, and damages for delay, etc. for KRW 207,315,363 among them,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive on December 6, 2017 on the grounds that there was no objection by B.

B. On September 13, 2012, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 250 million to B, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 250,00,000,000,000,000,000 from September 13, 2012 to 60 months from September 13, 2012, the joint ownership of the Defendant and the Defendant, C, and Female C, and 468.3 square meters on the land of KRW 468.3 square meters, which is owned by the Defendant, the second class neighborhood living facilities of the second class neighborhood living facilities of KRW 243.30,00,000 on the second floor.

(hereinafter “the lease of this case”). C.

On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) regarding KRW 230,286,124 from among the claims to return the lease deposit of this case against the Defendant under the Changwon District Court Decision 2018TT 103699, based on the above payment order. This was served on the Defendant on June 8, 2018.

[Grounds for Recognition of Facts] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 12, the purport of whole pleadings

2. In regard to the Plaintiff’s claim claiming the Defendant to pay the collection amount of KRW 230,286,124 and damages for delay pursuant to the collection order of this case, the Defendant asserts that the claim to return the lease deposit of this case was extinguished by set-off, etc. against the Plaintiff, such as the Defendant, C, D, etc. before delivering the collection order of this case.

According to the following facts and judgment, the above evidence, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 16, the claims for return of the lease deposit of this case were extinguished before the delivery of the collection order of this case to the defendant.

① This case.

arrow