beta
(영문) 대구지방법원칠곡군법원 2020.08.20 2019가단30045

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 13, 2019, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order of the manufacture price for machinery facilities at this court 2019 tead and 494. The Defendant entered the Plaintiff’s delivery place as the place where the Plaintiff was a corporation’s head office, Gyeongnam-gun C.

B. On May 14, 2019, this Court shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 13,675,69 and 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.

"The payment order of this case" (hereinafter "the payment order of this case") was issued.

C. If the instant payment order was not served on the Plaintiff, the instant court ordered the Defendant to rectify the address. On May 23, 2019, the Defendant revised the Plaintiff’s place of service to “D buildings and E in Busan-gun, the title of the Plaintiff’s representative director’s residence,” but was not served as a closed door absence.

The court again filed an application for special delivery on June 10, 2019 with the Defendant. On June 27, 2019, the court enforcement officer intended to deliver the instant payment order to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s spouse in the “Building D, E, etc., Busan-gun, and the Plaintiff’s representative director’s spouse,” but the said omitted name was the Plaintiff’s representative director’s office, and the enforcement officer refused to receive the instant payment order by refusing to return the delivery.

E. The instant payment order was finalized on July 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was not served with the instant payment order. Even if the instant payment order was served with the Plaintiff’s representative director’s residence, it is not served with the lawful recipient. 2) The lawsuit of objection against the instant payment order becomes final and conclusive by the obligor.