logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2017.02.09 2015가단2945
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s order for the payment order issued on August 28, 2014 to the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court for the Plaintiff is based on the payment order issued on August 28, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The party and the defendant are creditors under the payment order stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the order against the plaintiff, C and D (hereinafter "the order of this case"), and the plaintiff is the debtor, and C is his father and wife.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s filing an application for the instant payment order with C, the Defendant submitted as evidence a written agreement for consultation (Evidence A2, hereinafter “instant agreement”) by asserting that the Plaintiff had borne jointly and severally liability of KRW 85 million with C.

In the debtor column of the above agreement, the name of the plaintiff is printed, and the name of the plaintiff is affixed next to his name.

C. The criminal judgment C against the Defendant was indicted due to the crime of fraud and fabrication of private documents against the Defendant and was sentenced to a sentence of one-year imprisonment (this Court Decision 2015No772), and the appeal against the Defendant was dismissed (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016No2914), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 23 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the party's assertion argues that, as stated in the agreement of this case, the plaintiff did not bear joint and several obligations against the defendant as to C's obligations as stipulated in the agreement of this case, and that, as the agreement of this case did not allow the defendant to affix his seal or to make the agreement of this case, the payment order of this case is issued without the claim against the plaintiff, and compulsory execution based thereon should not be allowed.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the payment order of this case was issued based on the effective claim, since the plaintiff affixed a seal to the agreement of this case or C consented to the preparation of the agreement of this case by the above agreement of this case.

B. Determination No. 2 cannot be used as evidence.

arrow