beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, and the entire pleadings:
On January 17, 2012, Daedo Trade Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for a payment order of KRW 29,111,130 against Non-Party C, who is the father of the defendant, for the payment order of KRW 29,11,130 (price of goods No. 146). The payment order became final and conclusive.
B. Nonparty D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the price for the goods identical to the above claim for the price for the goods under paragraph (a) at the Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (Article 2013Da20506, May 29, 2014), and the lawsuit was concluded on May 29, 2014.
6. On 19. 19. Judgment against Non-party D was rendered, and its judgment became final and conclusive.
C. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the payment of the goods from the above companies, and the said companies notified the Defendant of the transfer on the 15th of the same month.
2. The plaintiff asserts that in the above basic facts, this claim for the price of goods is the original sale claim sold by the above company to the defendant, and that the plaintiff seeks the payment of the amount stated in the claim by taking over the above claim from the above company.
First of all, examining whether D is a creditor of the above goods claim, the judgment that D is not a creditor becomes final and conclusive as seen in paragraph (2). Since the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the claim after the date of closing argument in the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a successor after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, as seen in the above basic facts, the Plaintiff cannot make any assertion inconsistent with D’s above judgment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that D is a creditor cannot be recognized.
On the other hand, if we look at whether Daedo Trade Co., Ltd. is a creditor, as seen in paragraph (a) of the basic facts, the debtor is the debtor.