logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.04.29 2015가단693
추심금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,273,822 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 30, 2015 to April 29, 2015, and the following.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

(B) The U.S. District Court 2014Kadan1759 claimed that the Defendant had a claim, such as wages, filed an application for provisional attachment of the service payment claim against B, and the said court rendered a decision of provisional attachment of the claim against KRW 59,172,830 on June 20, 2014 (hereinafter “decision of provisional attachment”).

(2) On June 25, 2014, the decision was served on the Defendant on June 23, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the claim for wages, etc. against the Ulsan District Court 2014Kadan15865 (hereinafter “B”) and rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 59,172,830 per annum and twenty percent per annum from August 25, 2013 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment on the merits”). This became final and conclusive as is.

3) According to the judgment on the merits, the Plaintiff requested the Ulsan District Court 2014TTTT11041 to order the seizure and collection of the claim that is to be transferred to provisional seizure as the provisional seizure. As to the above KRW 59,172,830 on September 11, 2014, the above court shall additionally seize KRW 12,266,520, while transferring the provisional seizure order to the original seizure, and make a decision to collect the claim equivalent to the total amount of KRW 71,439,350 (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”).

(4) On May 2014, the Defendant paid 39,158,020 won, excluding value-added tax 4,115,802 won and rents 2,000 won as seen in the Defendant’s defense on June 25, 2014, following the delivery of the provisional attachment order of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4-3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 3, the whole purport of oral argument

B. The plaintiff asserts that according to the collection order of this case, the defendant is liable to pay 71,439,350 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

In light of the above facts, we examine the facts.

arrow