(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2019가단5324

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2019가단5324

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff filed a payment order with D (this Court Decision 2018 tea6851), and October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff received a payment order with the purport that “D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 41,900,000 and delay damages therefor,” and the said payment order was finalized on October 30, 2018.

The Plaintiff requested a seizure and collection order against D’s deposit claims and card sales claims based on the above payment order (this court 2018TTT 12554), and received a seizure and collection order on December 5, 2018.

(2) On December 14, 2018, upon receipt of the instant collection order, D transferred the instant collection order to the Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant, who was his/her grandchild, to evade compulsory execution based on the instant collection order, and on December 14, 2018, D transferred the instant collection order to the Defendant.

This constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and as a result, the damage corresponding to the collection amount of the collection order of this case occurred to the plaintiff, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for it.

2. According to the results of the order issued by this court to submit tax information on the part of the board board Nos. 3 and 4, and the response of the order issued by this court to submit tax information on the part of the strike, it is recognized that D has reported the closure of business with respect to the business registration of the trade name “F” on December 14, 2018, and that the Defendant has filed a new business registration with the same trade name at the same place.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant and D conspired with each other to commit a tort evading compulsory execution based on the collection order of this case, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further review.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.07.08 2019가단76952

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.04.11 2016가단205306

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.02 2018가단11367

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2020.06.02 2020고정64

-대구지방법원 2006. 12. 14. 선고 2006가단105211 판결