beta
Text
1. Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Da33209 decided Nov. 23, 2018 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and D on November 23, 2018, claiming that “The Plaintiff and D have agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of goods paid to the Defendant as the representative director, and thus the Plaintiff and D are jointly obligated to pay the amount of goods payable to the Plaintiff.” This court received a decision of recommending the understanding that “the Plaintiff and D jointly and severally pay the Defendant the amount of 16,285,240 won and damages incurred therefrom,” and the said decision became final and conclusive at that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no agreement that the defendant will pay the goods price to the defendant as the defendant as the defendant's husband, and the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff promised to pay the goods price to the defendant as the defendant's husband, the claim of this case in this case is groundless.
B. (1) Determination of performance recommendation does not take place even after the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation has become final and conclusive, and thus, the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection (Article 5-8(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). In a lawsuit seeking the objection, the determination of performance recommendation may be made on all the claims indicated in the decision of performance recommendation. In this case, the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim lies on the defendant in the lawsuit claiming the objection.
(2) The evidence submitted alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the goods payment obligation to the Defendant Company D as an individual, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's price for goods against the defendant.