beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,636,350 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 28, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap660), claiming the return of the lease deposit (Seoul Eastern District Court 2012Gahap660) against the Fladg Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Magjin Development”), and on July 11, 2012, the judgment was rendered that “The payment of interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum to the Plaintiff from April 1, 2012 to the date of full payment” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2012.
B. The Defendant paid the rent of KRW 3,363,635 per month when leasing and using 78 units of 68 units on the 6th floor of the Magjin-gu, Guro-gu, Seoul at the end of 97, and the Plaintiff, based on the above final judgment with executory power, was served on the Defendant on March 28, 2016, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016TTT 3635 (hereinafter “the instant collection order”), subject to the seizure and collection order against the monthly rent claim (hereinafter “total KRW 40 million”), and on March 30, 2016, the original copy of the decision was served on the Defendant.
【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 33,636,350 (the difference between March 31, 2016 and October 2016), and damages for delay, to the Plaintiff, the collection authority, according to the instant collection order, to the Plaintiff, who is the collection authority.
3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant is asserted that other creditors of the Minejin Development do not pay the rent claim against the defendant of the Minejin Development due to the competition of seizure and collection order. Therefore, the creditor who collects the claim upon receipt of the collection order in the case of a seizure light agreement shall be subject to the authorization of the execution court.