beta
Text
1. The defendant's decision to pay the price for goods to the Seoul Southern District Court 2007 tea8624 against the plaintiff was made.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 29, 2002, the Defendant engaged in the sales business of fishing products under the trade name of “C,” and engaged in credit transactions with the Plaintiff four times from April 29, 2002. On August 14, 2002, the Plaintiff does not pay the credit amount of KRW 2,888,50, but on May 4, 2007, applied against the Plaintiff for an order to pay the price for goods.
B. The payment order (hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case") was issued on May 23, 2007 to the effect that "the debtor (the title of the plaintiff) shall pay to the creditor (the defendant) the amount of KRW 2,888,500 and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order of this case to the day after the completion of the payment order of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case") and delivered to the defendant on May 23, 2007. It did not object.
6. 8. Finality was established.
C. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s credit card companies as the Gwangju District Court 2015TTT 5636 upon the instant payment order.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not pay all the goods claimed by the Defendant to the Defendant and did not pay all the goods to the Defendant.
Even if this case's payment order constitutes the goods price under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, it asserts that the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has expired.
B. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff paid all the price of the goods of this case by depositing the price of the goods of this case at the second day of pleading of this case, and the full bench ordered submission of related data, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid the price of the goods to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
However, the price of the goods in this case is stipulated in Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code in return for the goods sold by the plaintiff who is the merchant.