beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 230,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption with an executory force against loans of KRW 230,000,000,000, by a notary public, pursuant to No. 451, 2016, as a certificate of Onnuri Donuri, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”);
B. Ssung entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant and supplied the Defendant a total of KRW 239,102,618, etc. from March 2016 to July 2016.
C. On September 6, 2016, on the basis of the authentic copy of the notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption with the above executory power, the Plaintiff was subject to attachment and assignment order for KRW 230,000,000, out of the claim for the price of goods against the Defendant by the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon Branch of 2016TT 10533.
The above attachment and assignment order was served on the defendant on September 12, 2016, and it was finalized on October 18, 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment order”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (Evidence No. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, 230,000,000 won out of the price of the goods to be paid by the Defendant shall be deemed to have been fully paid to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 230,000,000 and the delay damages therefor.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) summary of the Defendant’s assertion (a) the attachment and collection order was issued by the head of the Suwon District Court for the claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant of Ssung, under which the other creditors of Ssung were served on the Defendant on September 26, 2016, 2016, 11148, 2016, 201837, 2016, 2016, 13828, and 2016, 2016, 13829, and the said seizure and collection order was in competition with the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is expected to proceed with the deposit procedure and is not obligated to pay the full amount to the plaintiff.
(b).