logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가합106019
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order on the amount of KRW 3,000,000,000 among mobile communication terminal sales bonds, total subsidies, management fees, and other claims (hereinafter “claim, etc.”) against the Defendant under an agency contract and any other subsidiary contract with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Kadan812647 (hereinafter “the instant provisional attachment order on the claim”) and the instant provisional attachment order on December 10, 205 was served on the Defendant on December 10, 205.

B. On June 13, 2016, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap57383, the Plaintiff transferred the above provisional seizure to a provisional seizure under the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Tadi105286, Jun. 13, 2016, and additionally issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order of the instant claim”). The Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, including the instant fee, which is equivalent to the amount claimed in KRW 322,520,548, and was served on the Defendant on June 16, 2016.

C. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the Defendant entered into an agency contract with the Defendant’s agency with the term of contract from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) with the content that the POF is performing the duties of attracting, managing, selling goods, etc. as the Defendant’s agent, and the Defendant pays fees, etc. in return for such transaction to the POF (hereinafter “instant agency contract”), and the subsidiary contract with respect to the handling of the Moble goods attached thereto (hereinafter “instant subsidiary contract,” and “instant agency contract, etc.”).

On July 8, 2016, the defendant requested payment of the amount collected by the plaintiff on July 8, 2016.

arrow