logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가단68738
매매대금
Text

1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Order 2006Da98440 dated December 22, 2006.

Reasons

The Samdae Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tridae Construction") was issued a payment order (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant payment order") ordering the payment of KRW 21,382,140 on December 22, 2006 and delayed payment damages against the original construction and the Plaintiff on or around April 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the original construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "original Construction") under the Plaintiff's joint and several sureties Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "original Construction") and supplied ready-mixeds but failed to receive the payment. The instant payment order was not served on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007, but there was no dispute between the parties to the supply contract and the Plaintiff on January 18, 2007, and the supply order became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff asserts that since around 2005, the plaintiff requested the original construction and the sales of real estate to C who operated the same business with the introduction of ship B, and the seal imprint certificate and identification card were not sold and returned, and since it was not the joint and several sureties's debt under the supply contract of this case, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be permitted.

Therefore, it is examined whether the Plaintiff has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the instant supply contract for the original construction.

First, there is no dispute that the following stamp image after the plaintiff's name was affixed to the seal of the plaintiff, but it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff did not affix the seal in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 5. Thus, unless it is recognized that the plaintiff granted the right to affix the seal to the above document to the third party, it shall not be admitted as evidence.

In addition, the Plaintiff issued the instant payment order.

arrow