beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s order against the Plaintiff was based on the executory payment order of the loan case No. 2017 tea 192897 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff under this Court’s 2017 tea No. 192897, Apr. 28, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order to the Plaintiff. This Court (“the instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 10,147,618 won and the amount of KRW 9,949,941 calculated at the rate of 34.894% per annum from April 28, 2017 to the date of full payment.”
B) Around that time, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement on October 5, 2015, and loaned KRW 10,000,000 to 34.894%, and on April 21, 2017, the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff began to delay the principal and interest on April 21, 2017. C. Based on the above payment order, the Defendant was issued the Jeju District Court’s order for seizure and collection (No. 2018TTT476).
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion does not have concluded a loan agreement of KRW 10,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant on October 5, 2015, and thus, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff applied for the loan to the Defendant on his mobile phone. The Defendant confirmed the identity of the Plaintiff by transmitting the certification number under the Plaintiff’s mobile phone name confirmed by using the personal certification delivery service, and remitted the loan to the passbook under the Plaintiff’s name. In concluding the instant loan agreement, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s income certificate, identification card, and business registration certificate, and the Plaintiff prepared the loan transaction agreement in his own writing and sent it to the Defendant by facsimile along with a copy of the identification card. Therefore, the instant loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was valid, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and as such, C, who is his father and the Defendant, has copied the Plaintiff’s name