(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.01.16 2017가단120842

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.01.16 2017가단120842

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant applied for a payment order claiming a loan of KRW 100 million and its delay damages against Daejeon District Court 2014 tea496, and received the payment order from the said court on August 13, 2014, and the said payment order became final and conclusive.

Based on this, the Defendant applied for the attachment and collection order of KRW 65,00,000 among the construction cost claims that C had against the Plaintiff, a third debtor, for the attachment and collection order of the Incheon District Court Branch Branch 2015TT 2015TT 8046, and received the attachment and collection order. The above attachment and collection order were served on the Plaintiff on August 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant collection order”). B.

The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 65,00,000 and delayed payment damages against the Plaintiff under the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2016 tea2432, and received the payment order from the above court on October 31, 2016, and the said payment order was finalized on November 22, 2016.

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 23, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s main defense was that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily file the instant lawsuit, and the letter of delegation in the name of the Plaintiff attached to the instant complaint was not genuine, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed by a person who did not have the right of attorney, and is unlawful.

B. On December 12, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff’s attorney was present at the seventh day of pleading and requested Nonparty D to appoint the Plaintiff’s attorney, following the submission of the instant complaint to this court, accompanied by a letter of delegation of litigation under the name of the Plaintiff, and then the Plaintiff’s attorney was conducting the instant litigation as the Plaintiff’s attorney. The fact that the Plaintiff himself was present at the seventh day of pleading of this case, and that he requested Nonparty D to appoint the Plaintiff’s attorney.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.08.22 2016가단5555

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.01.14 2019가단229532

-서울북부지방법원 2020.07.09 2020가단108995

-서울서부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단14309