logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.07.05 2016나50396
전부금
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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued an attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”) with respect to the amount until it reaches KRW 29,082,372 among the deposit claims against the Defendant in B (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”) by a court of 2015TT714 based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the loan case No. 2014Gadan22999, which was based on the original copy of the judgment in force.

B. The instant attachment and assignment order was served on May 21, 2015 on the Defendant, and on June 1, 2015, respectively, to B, and became final and conclusive on June 9, 2015.

[Judgment of the court below] The facts of lack of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, based on the instant attachment and assignment order, sought payment of KRW 29,082,372 of the deposit claim against the Defendant B based on the instant attachment and assignment order.

In regard to this, the defendant defense that ① the amount of deposit claim B, which is the entire claim of the seizure and assignment order of this case, constitutes claim 59,516 won, and ② the above deposit claim is subject to prohibition of seizure. ② The Chuncheon District Court 2015TT-5019, which was prior to the seizure and assignment order of this case, was a prior seizure of ELT-property management loan, and thus the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the plaintiff is deemed to have led to the confession of the above defense pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the above assignment order is null and void, and the plaintiff's assertion

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow