beta
(영문) 광주지방법원영광군법원 2016.10.12 2016가단516

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s order for payment for the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff is authentic.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and C for a payment order with the Gwangju District Court, Young-gun District Court 2016 tea 2, and the said court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff KRW 7,920,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was sent to the Plaintiff and C on January 20, 2016 and became final and conclusive on February 4, 2016.

B. On February 13, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction with the Gwangju District Court 2016Kao60844 on February 13, 2016, with the title of execution for the instant payment order and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on February 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant submitted.