(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나39837

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 2015.12.04 2015나39837

추심금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff asserted that, as the title holder of the final judgment claim for loans No. 2012Gadan60232, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of delay damages for the amount of KRW 49,24,06,60, out of the remainder other than the prohibited amount of seizure, from the wage claim against the Defendant of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTA). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is not liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of delay damages for the amount of KRW 49,24,00,000 through KRW 106,666,666, Dec. 19, 2014, as the third obligor of the instant collection and collection order.

In the case of wage claims of which 1/2 of the balance, excluding taxes and public charges, out of wages, does not exceed 1.5 million won, the amount of remuneration claim of A up to 1.5 million won constitutes a claim to be prohibited from seizure (Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and Articles 4 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are not sufficient to recognize that the debtor's wage claim of A exceeds 1.5 million won per month, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence. Rather, according to the results of the order to submit the submission of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4-1, 4-2, and the Daegu Dong Vice Governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which was issued to the defendant, from around December 2, 2014 to the date of issuing the seizure and collection order of this case, and eventually, from around 1,052,00 won, the plaintiff's claim against A is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair.

참조조문

-민사집행법 제246조 제1항 제4호

-민사집행법 시행령 제3조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.11.06 2018나323

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.30 2015가단189793

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.21 2017가단59607

-대구지방법원포항지원 2016.02.02 2015가단6171

-부산지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단231015