beta
Text
1. The defendant's order for each payment order against the plaintiff was issued by the Daegu District Court Branch of 2007 tea 4074, 2017 tea 804.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 22, 2005, Defendant (former Trade Name: Professor.........) entered into a contract for the supply of learning papers with the purport that the Defendant shall supply learning papers once a week for 24 months, and that the Plaintiff shall pay 45,000 won per month.
B. From March 1, 2005 to July 27, 2005, the Plaintiff paid 225,000 won to the Defendant with subscription fees.
C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the remainder of the subscription fees of KRW 855,00 (19 months) and damages for delay on October 2, 2007 with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch (2007 tea 4074). The above court issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 855,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized on October 30, 2007.
Since then, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the same content as Paragraph (c) with the Daegu District Court Port Branch (2017Guj804). On June 5, 2017, the above court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 855,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 16, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of learning papers, but the contract was terminated after receiving for a period of two months, and there was no other way to receive the learning paper thereafter.
Therefore, the executive force of each payment order of this case should be excluded.
B. The defendant alleged that the defendant supplied 96 minutes of learning from March 1, 2005 to February 20, 2007, and the plaintiff supplied them.