beta
Text
1. The defendant's order for payment was issued against the plaintiff by the Daejeon District Court of the Daejeon District Court of the Republic of Korea, 2016 tea 478.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for payment order with the Daejeon District Court Order 2016Ka478, which claimed that the Plaintiff’s employees would pay food costs of KRW 10,628,200 and delay damages, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s employees were on credit provided food, etc. at the restaurant operated by the Defendant at the time of constructing the new building located in Boan-si B.
B. On December 21, 2016, the above court ordered payment of the amount claimed by the Defendant, and the above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the food cost to the defendant, since he is not the plaintiff's employee but the plaintiff did not agree to pay the food cost to the defendant, since the person who received food, etc. at the defendant's restaurant is an employee of the company directly operated by C, the owner of the building.
In this regard, the defendant presented the name of the defendant company that the plaintiff D requested the field employees to provide food and the food cost is responsible for the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the food cost to the defendant.
B. Determination 1) Since a payment order has become final and conclusive and thus an action of demurrer is not subject to limitations due to the time limit of res judicata (Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act). In a lawsuit of demurrer, the deliberation and determination of all the claims stated in the payment order may be conducted and the burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim lies in the defendant of the lawsuit of demurrer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73966, Jul. 9, 2009).