beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loan case against the Plaintiff on September 17, 2015, the Changwon District Court 2015 tea 1457, the Changwon District Court 2015 tea 1457.
Reasons
1. In fact, from March 5, 2007 to September 30, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 1,760,000 to the account under the Plaintiff’s name. KRW 1,166,157,950 from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant and its branch’s account.
On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff’s misinception C committed suicide, and around that time, the deceased’s inheritors, including the Plaintiff, renounced inheritance.
The Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 593,842,050 against the Plaintiff by asserting that “The Plaintiff lent KRW 1,760,000 to the Plaintiff as above; (b) received only KRW 1,166,157,950 among them; and (c) filed an application for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 593,842,050 against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2015 tea1457); (d) on September 17, 2015, the court issued an annual payment order from October 1, 2013 to the date of delivery; and (e) on October 1, 2013 to the date of full payment; and (e) on October 1, 2013 to the date of full payment; and (e) on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection within the period for objection, and thus became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Party’s assertion 1) It was true that the above money was deposited from the Defendant’s account in the Plaintiff’s assertion, or that the network C, the Plaintiff’s omission, transacted with the Defendant by lending the Plaintiff’s account, which is irrelevant to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant jointly with the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s omission
B. 1) In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. arising prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in a lawsuit of objection against the payment order (see Articles 58(3) and 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act). The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection is also based on general civil procedure.