beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is based on the payment order of the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea 2655.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The payment order entered in the order was finalized on August 6, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as the "payment order of this case").
The claim that was the cause of the claim for the payment order of this case is the claim that the defendant sought damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from October 21, 1998 to the date of full payment, on the ground that the defendant acquired the loan or the claim for judgment against the plaintiff by the trustee in bankruptcy of Orren Credit and Credit Depository of the Bankrupt Co., Ltd. on the ground that the defendant acquired the loan or the claim for judgment against the plaintiff, which was part of the judgment amount, and 6 million won among them.
(hereinafter referred to as the "Claims of this case") . [Ground for recognition] Gap 1
2. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a final and conclusive claim for payment order, the burden of proving the existence of the claim is against the defendant.
However, according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 5, the Seoul Central District Court 2003Da363260 case against the defendant in the joint bankruptcy trustee B and the defendant in the Orren Credit Credit Credit Depository of the bankrupt corporation, was in progress by public notice, and 45,624,405 won on April 21, 2004 and 29,684,636 won among them were in progress by public notice and 29,636 won on the payment of money at the rate of 25% per annum from October 21, 1998 to the full payment date, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff winning judgment was issued and confirmed on May 11, 2004. However, since only the statement of evidence No. 1, 204-1, which was submitted by the defendant is sufficient to recognize the existence of the claim of this case as the cause of the claim against the plaintiff in the payment order of this case, the defendant has no other evidence.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of the enforcement force of the instant payment order is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.