logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나2488
청구이의
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s Gwangju District Court against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 4,695,040 to the Defendant by May 31, 2013, on May 15, 2013, as well as to pay the price for goods from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”). (b)

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order for the payment of the price of goods under the instant agreement with the Gwangju District Court 2014Guj141. On February 28, 2014, the said court issued an order for payment stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 4,695,040 per annum to the Defendant, and the payment order from May 15, 2013 to the date of delivery of payment order ( April 29, 2014), 24% per annum from May 15, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and KRW 130,70 per annum for demand procedure (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). The said payment order was finalized on May 14, 2014.

C. The Defendant received from the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 from June 6, 2014; ② KRW 500,000,000 on July 4, 2014; ③ KRW 500,000 on August 8, 2014; ④ KRW 16,00,00 on September 16, 2014; ⑤ KRW 500,00 on October 16, 2014; ② KRW 500,00 on November 16, 2014; ② KRW 8,00,00 on January 26, 2015; and KRW 6 million on March 31, 2015.

The defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff on the basis of the payment order of this case, and received 6,56,373 won out of 7,612,363 won of the reported amount of the claim as the dividend creditor on February 22, 2016 from the procedure for compulsory auction on the real estate held by the plaintiff (Yanju District Court, Gwangju District Court, Namnam branch branch court), which was commenced accordingly.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. After a compulsory execution based on the executive title of the claim regarding the part of the lawsuit of this case has been completed as a whole, the creditor has received satisfaction, as a result of the completion of the entire execution.

arrow