logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.05.12 2020가단200071
집행문부여의 소
Text

1. The Seoul Western District Court 2014Hu47922 decided Dec. 21, 2006

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 10, 2015, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the above court on August 10, 2015, “the Defendant shall pay to Nonparty Company 6,394,92 and 1,692,349 won per annum from the following day ( August 13, 2015) on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to Nonparty Company for KRW 6,394,92,349.” The said payment order was finalized on August 28, 2015.

B. On February 27, 2019, Nonparty Company transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff.

C. On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims, but the notification was not served on the Defendant.

The plaintiff did not receive an execution clause to succeed to the payment order of this case due to the impossibility of being served with the notice of assignment of claims. As such, the plaintiff expressed his intention to notify the above assignment of claims as the service of the complaint of this case, and the warden of this case served the defendant on March 4, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the plaintiff was acquired by the non-party company's claim based on the payment order of this case from the non-party company after the payment order was decided, the Seoul Western District Court, etc. should grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant.

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant claim had already been extinguished by prescription.

However, in a lawsuit for grant of execution clause, the subject of hearing is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions and the fact of succession. Therefore, the debtor raises objection as stipulated in Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act.

arrow