청구이의
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff in Busan District Court 2014 tea2545 is dismissed.
2. This.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant, as Busan District Court Decision 2014Hu2545, against the Plaintiff and B, sold the Plaintiff and B, “The Defendant has sold V and spons, etc. from September 2008 to March 2013, 2013, and sold 3,328,711 V and spons, etc. The remainder amount of the goods is KRW 2,878,035. Around August 2013, B had to change the Plaintiff’s business registration by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name and lending KRW 20 million to B as operating funds, and the Plaintiff applied for the payment order on the grounds that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant would pay the full amount of the money if the money was paid for.” The payment order was issued on February 19, 2014, on the grounds that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be jointly and severally paid the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 287,375,000 and the Defendant shall be jointly and severally paid the amount of KRW 20858.”
As the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant payment order, the instant payment order was finalized on March 14, 2014.
B. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name C.
[Grounds for Recognition: entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff supplied the goods claimed by the defendant to B, not the plaintiff, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff acquired the former goods payment obligation of B, the defendant bears the obligation under the payment order of this case.
B. The judgment also recognizes that the defendant is a claim for the price of the goods supplied to B, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff agreed to pay the above debt on behalf of the plaintiff or accepted it.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case, which is based on the premise that the plaintiff bears the obligation to pay goods to the defendant, should not be allowed.
3. Conclusion.