beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.07.09 2019가단248

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's order of payment with executive force of the Daejeon District Court 2018 tea 18632 against the plaintiff is based on the original order of payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 2016, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order against the Plaintiff, claiming the remainder of KRW 584,000,000 in the remainder of the goods, and damages for delay thereof ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2018 tea18,8632).

B. On November 5, 2018, the Daejeon District Court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 584,00 and the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 22, 2018 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On December 7, 2018, the instant payment order was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be denied, since there is no purchase volume of the above goods.

In this regard, the defendant purchased the above goods, and the plaintiff's plaintiff's omission or spouse demanded debt settlement after receiving the payment order of this case. Thus, the plaintiff must pay the balance of the above goods to the defendant according to the payment order of this case.

B. (1) In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). (2) The Plaintiff purchased the said goods from the Defendant.

or the plaintiff.