beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans (No. 2017 tea 2566) to the Defendant’s High Government District Court for the Plaintiff and the Cheongbu District Court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 10, 2015, C, the father of the Plaintiff, borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant from the Defendant, and set up a loan certificate stating the Plaintiff’s name, etc. in the guarantor column of the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) to the Defendant.
B. On December 12, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 50 million according to the loan certificate of this case against the Plaintiff, which was issued by the Defendant on December 14, 2017, and the payment order was finalized on January 5, 2018.
(hereinafter “Order No. 1 of this case”)
In addition, on February 26, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 50 million and damages for delay based on the loan certificate of this case. On March 13, 2018, the said court issued the payment order upon the Defendant’s application, and the payment order became final and conclusive on March 13, 2018.
(hereinafter “Order No. 2 of this case”). 【No. 2 of this case’s payment order】 [Grounds for recognition], entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and 11(including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion in the name of the Plaintiff was forged by C.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of this case should not be permitted.
3. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff asserts that no claim has been established, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each description of evidence Nos. 7, 8, 15, and 16.