logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2015가합563848
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and won the entire appeal at the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap580358). On July 7, 2016, Nonparty C’s appeal was dismissed at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na205036). The above case is still pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Da238540).

According to the above judgment of the first instance court, Nonparty C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 492,60,000 won and 20% interest per annum from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. On the other hand, on September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (U.S. District Court 2015TTT 10324) regarding the claim for the amount of the claim based on the judgment of the first instance court as the amount of the claim and the amount of the claim under the “D Complex Development Business Right” (hereinafter “instant business right”) which Nonparty C holds against the Defendant. The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on September 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, entry of Eul evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each of the parties' arguments 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the acquisition of the business right of this case was made by the plaintiff against the balance of the acquisition amount that the defendant is to pay to the non-party C according to the contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above collection amount to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's argument that ① at the time when the defendant entered into the contract of acquisition of the business right of this case with the non-party C, the non-party C did not have the business right of this case. Thus, the defendant's acquisition of the

② Even if the above cancellation is lawful, Nonparty C did not have the instant business right and did not perform the obligation under the instant contract for acquisition of the instant business right, thereby cancelling the said contract.

(3) This shall apply.

arrow