청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 1, 2005, the Defendant deposited KRW 10,000 in the name of C, and KRW 20,000 in the name of the Defendant on November 17, 2005, into each Plaintiff’s account.
The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff against the plaintiff for the payment of the total amount of KRW 18,250,000 loan of KRW 10,000 as of November 17, 2005 and the amount of KRW 8,250,000 as of November 17, 2005, and the amount of delay damages for the loan of KRW 18,250,000 and the amount of KRW 18,250,00 as of November 14, 2006. The above court's "the defendant (the plaintiff in this case)" paid to the plaintiff (the plaintiff in this case) with KRW 18,250,00 as well as the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from November 14, 2006 to the date of full payment." The above decision was finalized on November 28, 2006.
(2) On April 28, 2010, the Defendant issued a collection order on the following grounds: (a) based on the instant performance recommendation decision, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s D Bank under Seoul Southern District Court 2010TTT 8053; and (b) on April 28, 2010, issued a seizure and collection order.
hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of the case"
(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, while working in a multi-level company, such as door-to-door sales, Co., Ltd., E, the Plaintiff transferred all of the money paid to the said company at the Defendant’s request by the Defendant, who is the party engaging in sales, to the said company by receiving the Plaintiff’s account. However,
In addition, the defendant filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of ten years from the time when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive, and the defendant's claim expired by prescription.
B. Although the Plaintiff alleged that he recommended the Defendant to make an investment and paid the amount directly to the account of the Company E, it is separate from the instant loan.
In this case.