beta
Text
1. It is based on the payment order issued on March 26, 2015 (2015j197) against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On March 26, 2015, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the order of "the Plaintiff shall pay the amount of KRW 6,042,710 and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order to the Defendant to the day of full payment." The above payment order was served on May 2, 2015, and became final and conclusive on May 19, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the other party who made goods transaction with the defendant alleged by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole pleadings is not a plaintiff but a limited company B that the plaintiff serves as the representative director. Thus, the plaintiff does not bear a debt for the price of goods against
Therefore, the enforcement of the instant payment order should be excluded.
The defendant's assertion concluded a rice supply contract with the plaintiff and supplied rice to the plaintiff from 2011 to 16, 2014, and the unpaid rice price reaches 6,042,710 won.
Judgment
In full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the purport of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 2-1 through 8, i.e., the plaintiff established a limited-liability company B for the purpose of wholesale and retail business on July 16, 2007, which is the director and representative director of the above company up to now, and the defendant's customer director, tax invoice and transaction statement issued by the defendant are indicated as "C" or "D", the other party to whom the defendant entered into a contract with the defendant and supplied rice from the defendant appears to be a limited company B rather than the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff is the defendant's individual as the opposite party.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay the goods to the Defendant, the enforcement of the instant payment order should be excluded.
The conclusion is.