청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) On March 3, 2004, the defendant filed an application for the payment order with the Seoul Western District Court No. 2004Da6650 on April 6, 2004, stating that "the defendant supplied the original part of the amount equivalent to KRW 9,367,490 (including value-added tax) on July 30, 2003 at the plaintiff's request, and provided the original part of the amount equivalent to KRW 9,464,070 (including value-added tax) on September 30, 203, the plaintiff did not pay the total of KRW 18,831,560 (including value-added tax), but the above court issued the payment order to the plaintiff as Seoul Western District Court No. 2004Da831,560 (hereinafter "the plaintiff's payment order") at the plaintiff's domicile from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the multi-sale order to the day of complete payment (hereinafter "the plaintiff's payment order").
B. On March 6, 2013, the Defendant, based on the instant payment order issued by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013TTTT 2013TT 6895, issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against C Bank, D Bank, E Bank, F Bank, G Bank, H Bank, and I Bank. On March 11, 2013, the above seizure and collection order was served on the third obligor.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, each fact with this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from April 30, 2003 to April 26, 2004, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of clothes under the trade name of “J” for about one year from April 30, 2003 to April 26, 2004, and the Plaintiff discontinued its business as it was not well
At the time, the plaintiff was fully organized the outstanding amount, but in the case of the defendant, the plaintiff was unable to settle the outstanding amount without reducing the amount.
Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist or differs from the amount of the instant payment order.
Even if the Plaintiff did not pay the outstanding amount due to the instant payment order to the Defendant.