beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the Changwon District Court, Kim Jong-si Court, August 21, 2017, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On the ground that the Defendant lent KRW 47,505,40 to the Plaintiff from May 31, 2017 to July 13, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order claiming a loan to the Plaintiff as the Changwon District Court Decision 2017Hu1476, Changhae District Court, Kim Jong-si, and on August 21, 2017, the Defendant issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 47,505,40 and the amount at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the authentic copy of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
B. The instant payment order was served on September 1, 2017 on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal of the objection following the filing of a written objection on September 5, 2017, and the instant payment order became final and conclusive on September 16, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The final and conclusive payment order which became final and conclusive as to the cause of claim does not have res judicata, and the obligor can file a lawsuit of demurrer for the reason before the payment order becomes final and conclusive such as non-existence of claim (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). If the obligor in the payment order files a lawsuit of objection by asserting the non-existence of claim, the obligee must prove the existence of the claim in accordance with the general principle
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant lent KRW 47,505,400 to the Plaintiff from May 31, 2017 to July 13, 2017, the Defendant did not have any obligation under the instant payment order against the Defendant, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order is not permissible.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.