beta
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2017.11.22 2017가단11095

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on November 17, 2016 by the Jeonju District Court of South Korea.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B An agricultural partnership (hereinafter “foreign partnership”) is an agricultural partnership established on August 10, 201 to engage in agricultural products distribution business, and the Plaintiff was a representative director of the non-party partnership from August 10, 201 to November 2, 2015.

B. From October 7, 2015 to December 30, 2015, the Defendant supplied non-party partnership corporations with rice equivalent to KRW 275,359,275 in total. After that, the non-party partnership corporation did not pay KRW 201,327,475 in total, and did not pay KRW 74,031,80 in remainder.

C. On November 4, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and the non-party partnership corporation for a payment order seeking the payment of the price of the goods under the former District Court Branch Order 2016Ra248, and on November 17, 2016, the judicial assistant officers of the above court issued the payment order with the purport that the Plaintiff and the non-party partnership corporation jointly and severally paid KRW 74,031,80 to the Defendant and the delay damages therefrom (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order became final and conclusive on January 4, 2017 for the Plaintiff, and on February 8, 2017 for the non-party partnership corporation, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number), and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff only served as the representative director of the non-party partnership corporation, and there was no fact that the non-party partnership corporation did not have any joint and several liability or joint and several liability for the defendant's obligation

Therefore, there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the above goods payment obligation to the Defendant, so compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the Plaintiff should be rejected.

B. When the defendant supplied rice to the non-party partnership corporation, the plaintiff who was the representative director made an oral agreement that he/she will be held liable for the payment of goods by the non-party partnership.