(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.12 2019가단215183

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.11.12 2019가단215183

추심금

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) under the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2009Gahap11792, and the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na44517, which held against Non-Party D (hereinafter “Non-Party D”) with respect to the claim of KRW 100 million of the purchase price of Non-Party Etel FF (hereinafter “instant officetel”) against the Defendant of the Non-Party Company as the preserved right.

B. The instant seizure and collection order reached July 13, 2018 to the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the purchase price to the non-party company in accordance with the collection order of this case by the plaintiff's claim. The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff's union A (hereinafter "the plaintiff's union") 65,012,601 won (=10,000,000,000 x 382,178,442 (Plaintiff's decision) x 587,852,870), and 29,727,776 won (=10,000,000 x 174,75,588 (Plaintiff's decision amount) /587,852,870 won) to the plaintiff's union A (the plaintiff's union).

The defendant asserts that, prior to the arrival of the seizure and collection order of this case, the non-party company paid all the sales amount of the officetels of this case.

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the judgment.

(1) Co-owners of Mapo-gu and H site established a reconstruction association for the purpose of removing existing buildings and constructing officetels, and the non-party company took part in the construction of the Etel while serving as the executor and the contractor of the said reconstruction association.

(2) On April 22, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract for interior-story construction with the content that the construction amount shall be KRW 140,000,000 with respect to the instant officetels with the Nonparty Company.

(3) On June 3, 2011, the Defendant is from the non-party company.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.30 2018가단209693

-서울동부지방법원 2013. 11. 05. 선고 2013가단24789 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.24 2015가단100042

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.15 2015가합22323

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.10.30 2014가단33283