(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가단5206632

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가단5206632

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 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap23498, and was sentenced to the judgment that “C shall pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 290,845,400 and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from June 16, 2017 to December 8, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On February 7, 2018, based on the original copy of the above judgment, the Plaintiff: (a) based on the amount of KRW 294,124,039, the loan principal and KRW 294,124,039, as the claim amount; (b) as the Seoul Central District Court 2018TT No. 201317, the Seoul Central District Court attached and collected the provisional seizure of KRW 50,000,00, out of the transaction amount of hotel expenses and ground expenses possessed by C against the Defendant, and seized and collected the provisional seizure of KRW 97,062,02,00, out of the same transaction amount (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

(2) On February 12, 2018, the instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 37 and 38, substantial facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned seeks the defendant to pay the collection amount equivalent to the above claim amount according to the collection order of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, as a person who vicariously makes a promise of a foreign hotel, etc., C pays travel expenses to be paid directly by a traveler to a local hotel, etc., in the local area, and as the defendant does not bear any monetary liability to C, the collection order of this case concerning non-existent claims is null and void, or the collection order of this case is null and void, regardless of the existence of seized claims, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unreasonable.

B. Determination 1.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2014.05.30 2014고단42

-부산지방법원 2020.12.10 2020나49171

-청주지방법원 2020.06.26 2019가단25394

-부산지방법원 2019.06.20 2017가단26047

-부산지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단7460