beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 31,386,159 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 21, 2018 to February 20, 2019 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as D) 2016da14636 (principal lawsuit) and damages (Counterclaim) at the rate of 15% per annum from June 1, 2016 to August 31, 2018, “D shall pay to D 70,960,000 and its interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “D shall pay D 24,54,300 won and its interest per annum from June 28, 2018 to the date of full payment.”
B. D appealed against the above judgment, and in the Suwon District Court 2018Na79278 (principal lawsuit), the appellate court rendered a judgment on October 16, 2019, “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,415,700 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 1, 2016 to October 16, 2019,” which is the case where “D shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,415,700 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”
C. On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order for KRW 80,091,633, out of the construction cost claim against the Defendant (the construction cost claim for the construction work to construct the F building in Ku-gu E) by the Incheon District Court Decision 2018TTT26724, and the original copy was served on the Defendant on November 16, 2018.
After November 16, 2018, on which the order of seizure and collection was served, the Defendant paid D the said construction price as the said construction price on December 10, 2018; 450 million won on January 10, 2019; 350 million won on January 25, 2019; 80 million won on February 11, 2019; and 70 million won on March 11, 2019.
[Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, evidence No. 1 to 12 (including paper numbers), all purport of oral argument]
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim against D is equal to the amount cited in the above judgment of the second instance, and since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant who received a seizure and collection order is more than the amount, the defendant shall claim against the plaintiff.