logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.18 2020가단5178846
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43,653,637 won and the interest rate of 12% per annum from July 11, 2020 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) transferred to the Plaintiff on May 4, 2020 the claim amounting to KRW 43,653,637 out of the claim amounting to the Defendant for the payment of part of KRW 232,795,698 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the claim of this case”).

(b) E: The same month;

6. The month in which the defendant is notified of the transfer of claims by mail according to the certification of contents and the notification thereof is given to the defendant;

7. The defendant was reached (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer of the claim in this case"). 【No dispute exists concerning the transfer of the claim in this case's case, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is obligated to pay delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 11, 2020 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, barring special circumstances.

B. (1) The Defendant’s argument regarding the instant claim (1) was affirmed at the time of the Defendant’s receipt of the notice of assignment of claim of this case along with E’s default, and the decision of provisional seizure of three claims was reached to the Defendant, and there was an objection from one of the creditors of provisional seizure that the instant claim constitutes an act of infringing upon the right to claim transfer from one of them, and the Defendant is deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the obligee’s confirmation deposit and the execution deposit in the event that it is invalid.

Since the mixed deposit was made, the claim of this case cannot be complied with.

(2) According to the evidence as seen earlier prior to the fact of recognition (A) and the evidence as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as to the claim for the price of goods against the Defendant of E, the creditor F’s provisional attachment decision (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020Ka, 80693), and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), as to the claim for the price of goods against the Defendant of E.

arrow