beta
Text
1. The payment order for credit card use case between D organization and the defendant was issued by Busan District Court 2010 tea 27320.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. D organization filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a credit card use price claim with the Busan District Court Decision 2010 tea27320, and received a payment order on December 29, 2010, stating that “the Defendant shall pay D organization interest and delay damages for KRW 2,616,075 and KRW 2,111,497 among them.” The above payment order was finalized on January 21, 201.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.
D Organizations transferred their respective claims based on the instant payment order to E Co., Ltd. on December 7, 2012, and to the Plaintiff on October 26, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims, but the said notification was not delivered to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a successor to the claim based on the payment order of this case. Thus, the Busan District Court, etc. is obligated to grant the plaintiff a succession execution clause to the plaintiff, a successor to the D organization, in order to have the plaintiff enforce compulsory execution against the defendant based on the payment order of this case.
B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant’s D organizations had already been repaid. However, in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause, the subject of deliberation is limited only to the fulfillment of conditions or the existence of succession, and it is not permissible to simply assert the grounds for objection regarding the claim in the lawsuit for granting the succeeding execution clause without filing a claim objection. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept by itself.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.