청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The plaintiff's assertion and the person who actually traded alcoholic beverages with the defendant is engaged in the danran business by transferring his store from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not bear an obligation to pay liquor to the defendant.
However, the Defendant received a payment order against the Plaintiff and enforced compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3.4 million to the Defendant and used KRW 600,000 as litigation costs.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 4 million won (3.4 million won) and damages for delay.
2. According to the purport of the evidence No. 6 of the judgment and the whole pleadings, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff on September 9, 2013, the defendant received an order to pay the plaintiff with the content that "the plaintiff shall pay the plaintiff the alcohol price of KRW 3,973,688 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 3, 2013 to the date of complete payment." The above payment order becomes final and conclusive on October 17, 2013.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order is lawful, and the defendant received 3.4 million won from the plaintiff without any legal ground.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to view that the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 600,000 for the costs of lawsuit.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the payment order ordered the Plaintiff to pay alcoholic beverages to the actual debtor B, is unjust. Thus, according to the purport of the written evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff registered the Plaintiff’s business under the trade name of “DNo No. 3” by leasing the Busan East-gu C underground store, and registered the Plaintiff’s ran tavern business on January 21, 2013, and sub-lease the said store to B on January 21, 2013, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff sub-leaseed the said store to B on January 21, 2013, but can be recognized by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings.