2013dada24 Objection

A

Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.

January 16, 2015

February 13, 2015

1. The Cheongju District Court of the defendant's Cheongju District Court of the 2012 World War 186, which rejected compulsory execution based on the payment order of the loan case.

2. Suspension of a compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of a payment order under paragraph (1) shall be made until this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s Internet website, set KRW 10,000,000 as an overdue interest rate of KRW 38.99% and lent to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s verification procedure with the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate.

B. The Defendant filed an application with the Cheongju District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of the above loan against the Plaintiff as the Cheongju District Court Decision 2012 tea186, Oct. 9, 2012, this Court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Defendant for KRW 10,780,534 as well as KRW 10,00,00,000 per annum from September 16, 2012 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on October 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

Since the plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted because he did not borrow the above loan from the defendant, it is reasonable to view that Eul, who is the plaintiff, obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff, borrowed the above loan from the defendant by stealing the plaintiff's authorized certificate without obtaining the right of representation from the plaintiff, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should not be permitted. In full view of the whole purport of the argument, it is reasonable to view that Eul, who is the plaintiff, obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff, borrowed the above loan from the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Boapopopon