logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단30776
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,50,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from June 24, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2015, C obtained a decision to provisionally seize the amount of KRW 10,111 square meters for D farm land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”). On February 12, 2015, C obtained a provisional attachment of the instant land as the claim claim amounting to KRW 447,765,750 for the Defendant (U.S. District Court 2015Kadan10172, hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”) by using loans KRW 21,50,000 against the Defendant as the claim amount (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”).

B. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the assignment of claims (hereinafter collectively referred to as “transfer of claims”) with the transferor C, E, and “C, and the transferor” as “C, E, and the claim subject to transfer of the instant land’s construction price claim and the claim subject to loan, part of which are KRW 21,50,000,000, and KRW 50,000,000. On the same day, the Plaintiff sent a notice of the assignment of claims stating the above fact to the Defendant, and the said notice was served to the Defendant on March 4, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1-3 evidence (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although E who representeded for the Plaintiff’s assertion C was awarded a contract for the civil works of the instant land by the Defendant, and performed construction works equivalent to the amount exceeding KRW 400 million from July 2013 to October 201, the Defendant transferred part of the claim for the said construction cost to the Plaintiff while C or E did not pay the construction cost at all, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the acquisition price stated in the claim.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into an agreement with C regarding the civil engineering works of the instant land, and that C cannot claim the construction cost if the agreement is terminated in violation of C in that agreement, and that C shall not pay the construction cost if the instant land is sold and sold, and that it shall not transfer the construction cost.

C The above Convention was terminated due to the violation of C, and the land of this case was not sold.

arrow