(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.05.25 2015가단125415

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) 대구지방법원 2017.05.25 2015가단125415

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. of pipes, steel, building materials, etc., and Defendant B is the representative of “D” located in Daegu-si Northern District, and Defendant A is the father of Defendant B.

B. The Plaintiff has a claim based on the No. 500 No. 500 of the No. 2014 and the No. 501 of the Promissory Notes No. 501 (the face value of the Promissory Notes No. 400 million) and the No. 501 of the No. 501 on the No. 501 of the instrument

C. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff received a confirmation of the fact that the instant corporeal movables are kept in custody of 100,163kg in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, which is D located in D from engineering, and tried to execute the seizure of corporeal movables at the location of the said D in order to secure a claim against engineering instead.

However, the execution of seizure was not carried out on the ground that there was no corporeal movables possessed by the debtor, and that the corporeal movables had already been disposed of under the consent of the engineering instead of the debtor.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff tried to execute a seizure of corporeal movables worth KRW 260 million at the market price stored in D operated by the said company, in order to preserve the claim of KRW 60 million against alternative engineering.

However, the Defendants arbitrarily moved the storage place for the said corporeal movables and interfered with the Plaintiff’s execution of seizure of corporeal movables.

The plaintiff suffered losses due to the non-execution of the seizure of corporeal movables, and seek for the payment of 150 million won in preference to the compensation for the damages.

3. First of all, we examine whether the Defendants intentionally changed the storage place of corporeal movables in order to obstruct the Plaintiff’s execution of seizure of corporeal movables in their custody.

Alternative engineering is the volume that it commissions steel production to D, and the amount of the gold production cost.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.11.04 2020가단527495

-대법원 2020. 1. 30. 선고 2019다265475 판결

-서울고법 2022. 10. 27. 선고 2022나2015616 판결

-울산지방법원 2016.06.16 2015가합22072

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.11.15 2019가단5118