beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 57,22,123 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 13, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 4-1 to 11, Eul evidence 4-1 to 12, Eul evidence 12-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, and there is no counter-proof.
(1) The Plaintiff has a claim against Nonparty C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) based on an executory payment order for the service costs case No. 2016 tea56109, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da56109.
(2) On September 23, 2015, the Defendant provided Nonparty Company with the business of management consulting and CP development from September 1, 2015 to December 1, 2015, and concluded a contract under which the Defendant would deposit the amount of remuneration into the bank account designated by Nonparty Company (hereinafter “instant consulting contract”). The amount of remuneration incurred under the instant consulting contract is KRW 70,550,000,000 for December 2, 2015, KRW 6418,00,000 for January 6, 2016, KRW 87,880,000 for February 2, 2016, KRW 17,780,000 for KRW 687,787,6770,000 for April 6, 2016, KRW 2067,616 for KRW 6067,606,616,6767,600,616.67.616
(3) In order to execute the claim under Paragraph (1) above against the non-party company, the Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) with respect to the “claim amounting to KRW 75,724,396, out of service costs under the instant consulting contract, which the non-party company holds against the Defendant” under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016TTTT 113940, and the instant collection order was served on the Defendant on January 4, 2017.
B. According to the facts found above, the defendant, barring special circumstances, sought by the plaintiff within the above 75,724,396 won under the collection order of this case, which was less than the service cost incurred under the consulting contract of this case, and barring special circumstances.