logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가단227495
추심금
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. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Kadan49791, and the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (C) shall pay to the Plaintiff 25,250,000 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from October 31, 2013 to February 7, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

B. C is engaged in bond business, and there are several occasions of lending money to the defendant and receiving reimbursement.

(In the process, C’s loan claims to the Defendant are “the instant loan claims”).

In order to receive the above judgment amount claim (hereinafter “instant judgment amount claim”), the Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order, etc.”) from the Suwon District Court under the Suwon District Court Branch 2014TTT 5625 as to the amount equivalent to the judgment amount claim among the instant loan claims. The Plaintiff reached the Defendant on May 11, 2014.

The Defendant refused to perform the collection order, etc. of this case on the ground that the loan claim of this case does not exist.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment of this court

A. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the instant loan claims based on the collection order, etc. of the instant case.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable, as the instant loan claims were extinguished by the settlement between the Defendant and C (hereinafter “Settlement before April 10, 2014”) on April 10, 2014, prior to the arrival of the collection order, etc. of the instant case to the Defendant (e.g., May 11, 2014).

B. We examine whether the instant loan claims between the Defendant and C have ceased to exist due to the settlement as of April 10, 2014, and the instant loan claims on February 20, 2014 were to D in the course of the pleadings of the instant case.

arrow