beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff was made based on the payment order in the Ulsan District Court 2010 tea 6507.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The order for payment in the Ulsan District Court 2010 teas. 6507 takes over money (hereinafter “instant order for payment”) was finalized 1) The Plaintiff, August 14, 2003, is Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moman Capital”).
(2) On October 13, 2010, the Defendant received a loan from the Plaintiff (the Credit Counseling and Recovery Fund prior to the change). (2) On October 14, 2010, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff with respect to the above loan claim, and on October 14, 2010, issued a payment order to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 8,707,6507 and damages for delay for KRW 3,447,74 among the KRW 8,707,153 and the amount of damages for delay for KRW 3,47,74.” The above payment order became final and conclusive on November 5, 2010.
B. The Plaintiff received a loan from the Industrial Bank of Korea on March 14, 2003, on March 14, 2003, the Ulsan District Court 2009Gau54167 (hereinafter “the first execution recommendation decision”), and the Plaintiff was a social company for Ethth Capital loan (the trade name before the change was made).
(2) On July 1, 2009, 2009, Gai Capital, upon receipt of the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the acquisition of the above loan obligation, and on August 3, 2009, the Ulsan District Court 2009Gau54167 decided on August 3, 2009 to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to Gai Capital KRW 3,587,048 and delay damages for KRW 1,961,00 among them,” and the decision on performance recommendation was finalized on August 20, 2009.
3) Around October 2012, the Defendant acquired the claim against the Plaintiff for the amount of money transferred to the Plaintiff, and the assignment of the claim was notified to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2013. C. Ulsan District Court Decision 2004DaDa14229 decided on the performance recommendation of the credit card use payment case (hereinafter “the second performance recommendation decision”).
(1) On April 3, 1993, the Plaintiff received a credit card from the Cho Ho Bank.