beta
Text
1. Defendant Dae Forest Industry Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from December 18, 2015 to January 27, 2016.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) No. 2-1 and No. 2; and (c) the fact inquiry results with respect to Non-Party Subdivision Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party 1”) in this court’s
A. On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note worth KRW 1 billion at a face value from a non-party company, and as to this, the Plaintiff was drafted a notarial deed accepting compulsory execution by a notary public law firm under No. 780 of the Mine Name Deed No. 2015 (hereinafter “notarial deed of the Promissory Notes”).
B. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision on seizure and assignment order regarding KRW 100 million (excluding wages to be paid to workers of the construction work out of the contract amount of the construction work under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) among the construction work claim of the Non-Party Company’s “Seonghaeker Quaker Quak Construction Corporation” (hereinafter “instant 1”) and the construction work claim of the Non-Party Company’s “Seongker A New Construction Corporation in Seoul, etc.” (hereinafter “instant 2”) as to KRW 100 million among the construction work claim of the Non-Party Company’s Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant 2”) (excluding wages to be paid to workers of the construction work under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).
(U.S. 2015T. 13532, hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment order”).
The instant assignment order reached 10:59 on December 16, 2015, and Defendant Daelim Industry on December 17, 2015, respectively, and became final and conclusive on December 31, 2015.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, No. 9-1 to 3, No. 10-2, No. 12, and No. 12 and No. 15, judgment No. 1 on the claim for the construction of the Yellow Sea shall be based on the overall purport of the pleadings.