beta
Text
1. The payment order for the lease fee case between the non-party D Co., Ltd. and the defendant in Busan District Court No. 2014 tea15673 is issued.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) had a claim against the Defendant based on the payment order for the lease fee case No. 2014 tea15673 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
B. On September 7, 2016, Nonparty Company transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff, and sought notification thereof to the Defendant at that time. However, the Plaintiff failed to file an application for the inheritance execution clause with this court because the notice of assignment of claim was not served on the Defendant.
C. On July 8, 2019, a duplicate of the instant complaint stating the purport that the Plaintiff received the assignment of claims from the non-party company was served on the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 7 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the succession execution clause for compulsory execution based on the instant payment order pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Execution Act as the successor to the non-party company.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the claim based on the instant payment order was partially extinguished due to the repayment deposit.
In light of the purport of recognizing a lawsuit for objection against the grant of an execution clause and a lawsuit for objection against a claim, the subject matter of a lawsuit for objection against the grant of an execution clause shall be deemed to have been subject to the requirements for the grant of an execution clause including the fact of succession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). As such, a debtor’s assertion of the grounds for objection against a claim under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act is not allowed in a lawsuit for objection against the grant of an execution clause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012).
3. The plaintiff's conclusion of this case.