beta
Text
1. The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2050130, 2050147, 2050147, and 2050154, decided November 17, 2016, against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. for damages under the Suwon District Court 2014Ga61275, 61657 (Joint), 62162 (Joint), and 62513 (Joint). The said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s claim on August 11, 2015, the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na20130, 2050130, 2050147 (Joint), 2050154 (Joint), and 2050161 (Joint) (Joint) Decided November 17, 2016.
B. On November 17, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment changing the judgment of the first instance court to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,850,00 to the Defendant and KRW 350,000,00,000 per annum from October 11, 2016 to November 17, 2016; KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; KRW 1,50,000 per annum from October 11, 206 to November 17, 2016; and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant executive title”); and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 10, 2016.
C. The Defendant provisionally attached the Plaintiff’s real property as the preserved right (U.S. District Court 2014Kadan200573), and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50,000,000 as the deposit money for the provisional seizure against the said real property.
(Y) On March 22, 2017, the principal and interest 1,961,020 won based on the executive title of the instant case was distributed to the Defendant on March 22, 2017, from the distribution procedure of Busan District Court Support C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant distribution procedure”) with respect to the foregoing amount of deposit for the naval wave (No. 10016).
(The above money was paid to the Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Korea Technology Finance Corporation) which is the defendant's collection authority pursuant to Seoul Central District Court 2017TTTTT102076. The ground for recognition is the absence of any dispute, the entries in Gap's 1 through 4, 6, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s claim on the principal and interest on the executive title of this case was extinguished by receiving all dividends in the distribution procedure of this case.