beta
Text
The Cheongju District Court 2018th 2075 against the defendant C is denied compulsory execution based on the payment order.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s judgment 1 against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) filed an application for provisional attachment against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017Kao 20474, KRW 377,576,712, the acquisition price claim for the transfer of 13 real estate owned by C with the payment claim of KRW 377,576,712 as the preserved bond, and the said court rendered a provisional attachment order on March 15, 2017.
2) In Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na 2060602 decided February 6, 2020 between the Plaintiff and C, “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 290,463,614 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from October 19, 2018 to February 6, 2020, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” was sentenced to partial acceptance, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On July 24, 2018, the Defendant filed an application against C for a payment order claiming payment of the agreed amount for return of investment with the Cheongju District Court 2018 tea 2075, and the said court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the Defendant for delayed payment calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment.
The instant payment order was finalized on August 11, 2018.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including all numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The instant payment order against the Defendant Defendant C alleged by the Plaintiff was issued as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim based on false claims without any cause. As such, the Plaintiff, a creditor of C, seeks to exclude the enforcement of the instant payment order against the Defendant by subrogation of C.
2) The Defendant alleged that he/she received investment recommendation from E, the actual representative of C, and invested cash in C, and jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligations.
The defendant is above.