beta
Text
1. The defendant's original of the payment order for the loan case against the plaintiff was based on the original payment order for the Chuncheon District Court's territorial branch 2009j315.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant lent to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 90 million on June 20, 2006, and KRW 20 million on December 30, 2007, to the Plaintiff at 36% per annum, respectively. However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest but did not pay the interest from April 30, 2008, and filed an application for a payment order seeking the payment of the loan against the Plaintiff with the Seocho District Court Branch.
B. On April 13, 2009, the above court rendered a payment order to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 90,000,000 and KRW 70,000 among them, with the interest of KRW 30% per annum from April 30, 2008, and from April 30, 2008 to the date of full payment, each of which is 30% per annum from April 30, 2008. The above decision was served on the Plaintiff and became final and conclusive on May 12, 2009.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be denied since he did not borrow money from the defendant. The defendant lent 70 million won to the plaintiff several times in 2006 and received the certificate of borrowing as of June 20, 2006, and then additionally lent 20 million won on December 30, 2007 to the plaintiff and received the certificate of borrowing.
3. In a lawsuit for objection against a claim for a payment order for which judgment has become final and conclusive, not only the grounds for extinguishing the claim or preventing the exercise of the claim after the issuance of the payment order, but also the failure or invalidity of the claim before the issuance of the payment order, etc. are deemed to constitute grounds for objection. Therefore, when the debtor asserts the failure or invalidity of the claim, the burden of proving the establishment or validity of the claim shall be borne by the creditor, namely, the defendant in the lawsuit for objection.
In light of the above legal principles, each of the statements in Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, No. 1, 1, 2, and 1, as a whole.