beta
Text
1. The part of the instant lawsuit, which seeks a non-permission of compulsory execution against corporeal movables, shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff requested C to construct a new building of “D”, and C subcontracted the said construction to E.
B. The Defendant is a person who runs the business of lending temporary materials in the name of “F”, and around the end of July 2014, the Defendant loaned the necessary temporary materials to E as a result of the construction site.
C. The joint and several sureties column of the building site lease contract concluded between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “instant contract”) is indicated as follows, and the door door is affixed on the signature side of “A”.
Name of joint and several sureties: D Registration Number: G resident number: H representative telephone: I address: J representative director in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Y (Plaintiff)
D. The Defendant filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff and E to the effect that the Plaintiff seeking rent, etc. was not paid due to the failure to receive the construction temporary rent. On March 15, 2015, the Defendant did not file an objection within two weeks after the original copy of the payment order was served on the Plaintiff, and the part against the Plaintiff was finalized as is.
(E) 【Reasons for Recognition”: 【Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1-1 and 4 (Evidence A No. 1-8, and Document No. 1-1) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The part of the instant lawsuit on which a non-permission of compulsory execution against corporeal movables is sought ex officio as to the part on which a non-permission of compulsory execution against corporeal movables in the instant lawsuit is sought as to the part on which a claim is sought, and the lawsuit of demurrer is sought as to the exclusion of the executory power of the name of the debtor, and it is unlawful to seek a non-permission of the act of individual execution already executed (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1008, Dec. 28, 1971). Accordingly,
3. Judgment on the part demanding the exclusion of enforcement force of payment order
A. The summary of the party’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff prepared the instant contract or conferred the power of representation to E.
(ii).