beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is based on the payment order of the loan case in Busan District Court 2009j25238.
Reasons
1. The defendant asserted that on April 24, 2006, the interest rate of KRW 7,00,000 was 30% per annum and July 24, 2006, and that on July 24, 2006, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff to the Busan District Court for the payment of the above loan under the Busan District Court Order 2009 tea25238, and on October 9, 2009, the above court received a payment order (hereinafter "the payment order in this case") from the above court to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 7,00,000,000 and its delay damages" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The above payment order was served on the plaintiff on October 16, 2009 and was finalized on October 31, 2009.
2. The plaintiff's assertion does not have borrowed the above KRW 7,00,000 from the defendant, and therefore the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall be dismissed.
3. The decision of the payment order does not take place even if it has become final and conclusive, and thus, it does not apply to the lawsuit of demurrer pursuant to the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). Therefore, in the lawsuit of objection, the determination of the payment order may be deliberated and judged on all the claims indicated in the payment order. In such a case, the burden of proof for the existence or establishment of the claim is against the defendant in the lawsuit of objection.
In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant lent KRW 7,00,000 to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2006, with the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum and the due date of payment on July 24, 2006, such as the cause of the claim for the instant payment order.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should not be allowed.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.