beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Jeonju District Court Branch 2017 tea923 is denied.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 30 million and delay damages to the Defendant” under the former District Court’s Gunsan Branch Decision 2017 tea923, Sept. 28, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan, and the payment order became final and conclusive on October 27, 2017 as the date of filing an objection.
B. The Defendant, with the title of execution of the instant payment order, received a decision to seize and collect the claim against the Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) regarding the benefit claim (Seoul Central District Court 2017TTT 21372).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including a paper number)
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not borrow money from the Defendant. On May 2017, C et al., and C et al. offered that the Plaintiff, at the location of D branch office, offered a vehicle as security and borrowed 12,000,000,000 won out of the money borrowed from C from the Defendant as gambling funds. Thus, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.
B. Around May 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 500,000 per month of investment amounting to KRW 10,000,000,000, when he/she believed that he/she was the head of a branch office in D, and invests a rental car business fund to the Defendant in the form of introduction of the Plaintiff by C, and accordingly, the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 on May 28, 2017 to the Plaintiff by remitting the amount to the Plaintiff’s deposit account.
3. Determination
A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order.