logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.18 2015가단5342957
공탁금출급청구권 확인
Text

1. 85,046.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. New Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Engineering Co., Ltd.”) is obligated to pay KRW 85 million and its delay damages to Defendant Franchision Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor Company”) upon the decision in lieu of the conciliation of the Seoul District Court Decision 2013Gau9757 Decided September 16, 2014 in lieu of the conciliation of September 16, 2014.

B. On July 8, 2013, in order to guarantee G’s KRW 1.5 billion obligation to the Plaintiff, the debtor company transferred the above claim to the non-party company of the debtor company to the Plaintiff, and the notification with a fixed date on the assignment of the claim is given for the same year.

8. 30. The non-party company reached the non-party company.

다. 피고 B, C, D, E, F, 주식회사 잇웍스는 채무자 회사의 소외 회사에 대한 위 채권에 관하여 아래와 같이 채권(가)압류 명령을 받았다.

B B E F CD

D. On October 17, 2014, Nonparty Company deposited 85,046,580 won with the Plaintiff and Defendants as deposited in gold No. 23241 of this Court (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) as of October 17, 2014.

[Based on recognition] Defendant 1: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the entire argument as to defendant 2-6: each entry in confessions (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act), Gap 1-5 evidence (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole argument, defendant 7: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-5 evidence (including virtual numbers), each entry in Gap 1-5 evidence, the purport of the whole argument, and the purport of the whole argument

2. Where judgment claims are transferred double, the order between the assignee does not determine by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor's recognition of the assignment of claims, that is, by the date and time of receipt of the debtor's notification of the transfer with the fixed date or after the date and time of acceptance with the fixed date. This legal doctrine applies to the case where the transferee of the claim and the executor of the provisional seizure order determines the order of transfer with the fixed date. Thus, the notification of the transfer with the fixed date and the original copy

arrow