logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.16 2016나27209
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Appointed Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) were sentenced by the above court on June 15, 2012 that “Defendant (Nonindicted Company) shall pay to Plaintiff B 1,056,000 won, 704,000 won per annum from November 13, 2009 to the day of full payment, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.”

B. On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Selected B received a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to KRW 3,989,33 ( KRW 1,595,733, 2,393: 2,600, out of the sales price for the apartment purchase (sale and lease) owned by the Defendant by the Nonparty Company, based on the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2016TTT5,51060, and KRW 3,989,333 (Plaintiff: 1,595,733, 2,393,60). The instant collection order reaches the Defendant on March 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the collection order of the instant case.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the non-party company conducted the business of selling apartment units (sale and lease) owned by the defendant and owned the claim for the sales price fees, only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff (including the materials submitted by the plaintiff after the date of closing argument in the trial court) and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim

The plaintiff asserts that the non-party company entered into a sales agency contract with the defendant on April 28, 2015, and accordingly, the non-party company has the right to purchase the apartment bonds after the collection order of this case.

According to the records of Gap evidence No. 3, the sales agency contract as of April 28, 2015, alleged by the plaintiff, is a person D to the manager of the defendant and the non-party company.

arrow