logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.17 2019가단249489
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 2018, the Defendant entered into a subcontract agreement with Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the construction work with respect to “the metal construction work on the etel site (hereinafter “instant construction work”)”, setting the contract period of KRW 2,193,400,000 from May 2, 2018 to April 10, 2019.

B. On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff received an order to pay the construction price from the non-party company as Incheon District Court Decision 2019 tea15529, and issued a provisional seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant order”) with its executive title as the Incheon District Court Decision 2019TTTTT 20051, supra. As to the instant claim for the construction price, the Plaintiff received a provisional seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

The order of seizure and collection of the instant claim was served on July 30, 2019 to the Defendant, who is the garnishee.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 30,900,213 won and delay damages to the plaintiff, who is the person holding the right to collect the construction price of this case according to the seizure and collection order of this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant’s obligation was extinguished because the Defendant deposited the entire amount of KRW 93,980,000 in the instant construction cost, and accordingly, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 93,980,000 with the Suwon District Court No. 2019, Aug. 28, 2019 pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. The Defendant asserted that the said amount was the whole amount of the instant construction cost’s obligation, and did not dispute the Plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's obligation to the non-party company of this case is all deposited.

arrow