logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.14 2014가단48186 (2)
청구이의의 소
Text

1. The defendant's payment order against the plaintiff was based on the Incheon District Court 2013 tea No. 1958.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On January 17, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff with the Incheon District Court Decision 2013 tea1958 and received a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay 236,000 won per annum to the Defendant at the rate of 20% from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on January 24, 2013 and became final and conclusive on February 8, 2013.

B. On February 20, 2013, the Defendant issued a collection order under the Incheon District Court 2013TT 4918 by designating the instant payment order as the executive title.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 13,60,253 to the Defendant on April 3, 2013 in order to repay damages for delay, 13,660, and enforcement expenses 23,140, from January 25, 2013 to March 11, 2015, the day following the delivery date of the instant payment order for KRW 682,395 and KRW 236,00,00, which was ordered in the instant payment order, from January 25, 2013, which was ordered in the instant payment order, and paid KRW 20,00 on November 7, 2014 to the Defendant as the principal deposit (Article 2412, the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch No. 303015, Jan. 2015, 301, respectively. 2015.

Since the Plaintiff’s debt to the Defendant according to the instant payment order, which is the enforcement debt, due to the Plaintiff’s above repayment and repayment deposit, has ceased to exist, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order shall be denied.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

arrow