beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the original payment order (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea781).
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition was that the Defendant, as an order for payment (Seoul Southern District Court 2016Ra781) issued by the Seoul Southern District Court 2016. An order for payment (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court 2016.781, the Defendant leased the equipment to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), but the Defendant did not receive the equipment rent of KRW 110,045,100 and delayed payment damages, and the Plaintiff promised to pay rent verbally. As such, the Plaintiff, jointly and severally with C, filed an application with C for payment of the amount of KRW 110,045,100 and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from August 28, 2015 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order, and the amount of the demand procedure cost at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the payment order even on March 18, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2
2. The parties' assertion
A. The above payment order was finalized because the plaintiff alleged by the plaintiff did not raise an objection against the above payment order by mistake. However, since the plaintiff did not have made a payment guarantee against the defendant for the obligation to pay equipment rental fees to the defendant C, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be allowed.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay equipment rental fees, such as the written application for payment order, by making a verbal undertaking.
C. Since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff guaranteed the Defendant by stating that the Defendant would pay the equipment rental fee to the Defendant, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order shall not be allowed.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.