logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.07.07 2014가단45307
청구이의
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 Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking payment of the goods under Daejeon District Court No. 2014 tea3238.

B. On May 15, 2014 with respect to the instant case, the authentic copy of the payment order was issued on May 15, 2014 to the effect that “The debtor, U.S. Co., Ltd., Ltd. shall pay 4,342,800 won to the creditor Co., Ltd. (Defendant) and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service of the authentic copy of the

C. The above payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 16, 2014, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on July 1, 2014 because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the above payment order.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion argues that since the plaintiff did not have received goods from the defendant, it is not obligated to pay the above goods to the defendant, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be rejected.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's above assertion.

(B) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff with electric equipment equivalent to KRW 4,342,80 and issued a tax invoice around September 2012; and (b) the Defendant sent each Plaintiff a certificate of contents demanding the payment of the above goods on May 13, 2013 and May 22, 2013; (c) the Plaintiff appears to have not raised any objection; and (d) the Plaintiff did not raise any objection despite being notified of the order for payment of the above goods; and (e) the Plaintiff received goods equivalent to KRW 4,342,800 from the Defendant on March 3, 2012. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed for lack of justifiable grounds.

arrow