logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.03.18 2020가단17396
추심금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne individually by each person.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the seizure and collection order of this case") from the defendant among the goods-price claims against the defendant who is the defendant and the third party as the defendant and the claim amount of KRW 47,722,191, and among the goods-price claims against the defendant who is the defendant, the seizure and collection order of this case, the original copy of the seizure and collection order of this case was delivered to the defendant on September 10, 2020. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff to the plaintiff according to the seizure and collection order of this case and the damages to the plaintiff 47,72,191.

B. As to the above, the defendant deposited the total amount of the claim of this case, and therefore there is no amount to be collected to the plaintiff.

Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that a third party obligor may deposit the full amount of monetary claims related to the attachment in the form of "the third party obligor may deposit the full amount of monetary claims related to the attachment. If the third party obligor deposits the execution pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act or Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground of attachment or provisional attachment, the seized claim against the third party obligor is extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da87502, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). In such a case, the deposit made by the third party is formally an execution, but the deposit has the nature of the repayment deposit in the relationship with the debtor. Accordingly, the third party obligor is exempted from its obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da35256, Nov. 26, 199, etc.). In full view of the purport of each of the plaintiff's arguments as to each of subparagraphs 1 and 2.

arrow