beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution based on the payment order in the loan case against the plaintiff by the defendant in Busan District Court 2009 tea 31485.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, on March 8, 2006, lent to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum (the 10th day of each month of payment), the due date set on March 8, 2007 (hereinafter “loan 1”); and additionally, on August 17, 2006, KRW 12% per annum (the 17th day of each month of payment) and the due date set on December 17, 2006.
(hereinafter referred to as “second loan”) and the first and second loans together referred to as “each of the instant loans” b.
As the Defendant did not repay each of the loans of this case to the Plaintiff, the Busan District Court Decision 2009Da31485 (hereinafter “Defendant”) applied for a payment order with respect to KRW 180 million to the Plaintiff from March 6, 2007 to KRW 30 million, and with respect to KRW 150 million from March 16, 2007 to the date of full payment, the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 16, 2007 to the date of full payment, and the above court made a payment order on December 29, 2009 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The payment order of this case was served on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2010 and became final and conclusive on January 21, 2010.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In a lawsuit seeking objection against a claim for the amount of each of the loans of this case at the time of the instant payment order, not only the grounds for extinguishing the claim or preventing the exercise of the claim after the issuance of the payment order, but also the failure or invalidation of the claim before the issuance of the payment order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966, Jul. 9, 2009). The interest rate of the loan No. 1 is 12% per annum, the interest payment date is 10% per annum, the interest payment date is 12% per annum, the interest payment date is 12% per annum, the interest payment date is 17% per annum, and the interest payment date is 17% per month, and the fact that the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2010 is as seen earlier. In full view of the purport of the argument as stated in evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff’s entire pleadings against the loan No. 1.