beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s acquisition of money by Seoul Southern District Court No. 2016 Ghana 437925 against the Plaintiff has an executory power.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff commenced a transaction in which he/she pays the price by being supplied with Cheongsz Co., Ltd. Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul Huz”) and completed the transaction around August 31, 2014.
B. On April 6, 2016, A in bankruptcy of Seoul NEz concluded a contract with the Defendant to transfer the claim for the purchase price of goods against the Plaintiff of Seoul NEz to the Defendant.
C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim against the Plaintiff for the amount of credit goods payment against the Plaintiff, Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gaso437925, on May 12, 2016, on the ground of the fact that the Defendant received the credit payment claim against the Plaintiff, and the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 11,323,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 6, 2015 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the amount of money calculated at the rate of 11,323,000 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 evidence, the whole purport of pleading
2. Determination:
A. From May 2012 to August 2014, 2012, evidence Nos. 1 and 6 sold and supplied to the Plaintiff by Seoul NEz was prepared daily from around May 1, 2012 to around August 2014, and contain details of transaction items and quantity. The evidence No. 14 is the purchase pre-sale list that the Plaintiff purchased from Seoul NEz every day during the transaction period. Most of the evidence No. 1, 6 and evidence No. 14 are consistent with each other, and the content of the deposit of Seoul NEz, as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 6, are consistent with the copy of the statement of passbook transaction that the Plaintiff deposited to Seoul NEz, with credibility high, Gap 1, 4, and 6, considering the circumstances and form of passbook No. 1, 4, and 6.
In the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6, part of the disagreements pointed out by the Defendant.