(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단14829

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) 청주지방법원 2016.11.23 2016가단14829

추심금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 65,718,677 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 2, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 21, 2010, the construction cost for the construction of electric source housing site for six parcels of land, such as Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction work”) was set at KRW 341 million (including value-added tax) and the construction period from December 27, 2010 to March 20, 201, respectively.

(After that, the deadline for completion was changed to July 20, 201). Domen Company completed the instant construction work around July 20, 201.

Referencely, the plaintiff is the defendant who paid the sum of KRW 210 million to the non-party company.

【Ground of recognition” No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the non-party company has a claim for damages for delay and 130,100,000 won calculated by deducting 20,000,000 won paid from the agreed contract price of KRW 341,00,000 from the Defendant.

B. On July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff, who served a collection order, issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the non-party company and the third debtor’s claim amounting to KRW 65,718,67 with the Cheongju District Court 2013TTTTTT 5895, and the claim against the defendant of the non-party company for the above construction cost (hereinafter “the claim for the construction cost of this case”) and the claim for delayed payment thereof against the defendant of the non-party company. The collection order was served on the defendant on August 14, 2013.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap 2 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is liable to pay the above construction price to the plaintiff as the collection obligee, the collection obligee, the above construction price of KRW 65,718,677, and the delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since the Plaintiff was reimbursed the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the non-existence or extinction of the enforcement claim cannot be asserted in the objection suit.

유사 판례

-대법원 1994. 11. 11. 선고 94다34012 판결

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.09.19 2018가단111641

-서울고등법원 2019.10.18 2018나2061971

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.04.24 2017가단3917

-전주지방법원 2018.07.05 2017나7647