beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant received a supply of and demand for Cheongju-gu Cheongju-si D’s D’ and subcontracted part of the construction work to F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and the Nonparty Company re-subcontracted part of the construction work to the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff has a claim for the construction cost of KRW 10 million against the non-party company, and the non-party company has a claim for the construction cost of KRW 180 million against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim for the construction cost”).
C. On October 26, 2018, the Defendant served the creditors, non-party company G, the debtor, the third debtor, the defendant's claim amounting to KRW 29,63,745 on the instant claim for the construction price ( Daegu District Court 2018Kadan3963). ② On January 14, 2019, the Defendant served the creditors, non-party company, the third debtor, the defendant, and the third debtor, the defendant, and the defendant at KRW 48,147,206 on the instant claim for the construction price (Cheongju District Court 2019Tju District Court 20147), and received the order of seizure and collection (Cheongju District Court 2019Tju District Court 201.3. On February 7, 2019, the Defendant served the creditor, non-party company, the debtor, and the third debtor with the claim amounting to KRW 11,375,873,873.
On February 8, 2019, Nonparty Company transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 110 million out of the instant claim for the construction cost against the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of claim”). On February 8, 2019, Nonparty Company sent to the Defendant a written notice of the transfer of claim by content-certified mail, which is a certified fixed date, to the Defendant. On February 11, 2019, the said written statement reached the Defendant.
E. On April 19, 2019, the Defendant had the aforementioned provisional seizure and seizure, and the instant construction payment due to prior relationship between them and the assignment of claims in this case, whether the assignment of claims was actually made, and the notification of the assignment of claims is not legitimate, under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and due to the deposit for repayment of claims and the execution deposit under Articles 248(1), 291 of the Civil Execution Act.