(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019가단5307129

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019가단5307129

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 80,000,000 and damages for delay against Suwon District Court Decision 201Da1560, Suwon District Court (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the payment order for KRW 80,000,000 and the damages for delay thereof, and the payment order was finalized on November 1, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for the seizure and collection order on the amount of the principal and interest of all monetary claims, including the right to claim a return of KRW 240,00,000,000, paid by the company outside the lawsuit against the Defendant on May 12, 2004; and (b) filed an application for the seizure and collection order on November 15, 2019 (U.S. District Court Decision 2019Tchi1648); and (c) issued the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) in accordance with the purport of the instant application, and received it on November 21, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obliged to pay the money stated in the claim to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, according to the collection order of this case.

In addition, since the defendant promised to pay the money claimed in the claim to the plaintiff several times from October 6, 2014 to December 12, 2017, the defendant is obligated to pay the money promised.

B. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of the claim to be collected in a lawsuit for collection, on the contrary of the judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). However, it is not sufficient to recognize the existence of a claim for return of investment amount against the Defendant of the non-party company solely on the basis of each of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4-2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the purport of the above evidence is the whole argument.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다47175 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2016.08.31 2016가단100355

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2021.02.19 2020가단375

-서울북부지방법원 2014.05.21 2014가합424

-의정부지방법원 2020.07.15 2019가단131954

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단13205