beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order for the loan to the Plaintiff was issued by Changwon District Court Decision 2014j123, 201.
Reasons
1. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff KRW 2 million on April 5, 2004, KRW 100 million on April 14, 2004, KRW 5.3 million on April 15, 2004, and KRW 5.3 million on April 15, 2004, and applied for a payment order seeking the payment of the said loan and received the said decision on the same day (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the said payment order became final and conclusive on July 22, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the Plaintiff asserted that he borrowed KRW 2 million from the Defendant on April 5, 2004, the loan was extinguished after full repayment at that time, and the remaining KRW 3,00,000 did not have been borrowed by the Plaintiff, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.
3. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. First, the facts that the Defendant lent KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2004 do not conflict between the parties, and thus, we examine whether the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 2 million to the Defendant.
In light of the following circumstances, the loan certificate concerning the loan amount of KRW 2 million from the defendant on April 5, 2004 stated that the plaintiff borrowed the loan amount of KRW 2 million from the defendant on June 5, 2004 as the interest rate of KRW 2 million and KRW 70,000 per day after borrowing the above KRW 2 million from the defendant, and the plaintiff paid the loan amount of KRW 2 million each day every one month after paying the loan amount of KRW 2 million, and affixed the seal on the defendant's number of days each time the above loan amount was repaid, and the receipt was not received separately. On the other hand, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had worked around that time, while the number of days of the loan certificate was recognized by the plaintiff, the defendant prepared and kept it, and that there was no document in custody other than the original loan certificate, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion is insufficient.