beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order with executory power of Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea1872 against the Plaintiff is due.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for a payment order as Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea1872, claiming that the Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 33,55,000 that accounts payable for the construction cost, and the above decision was issued by the above court on March 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and delivered to the Plaintiff on April 7, 2016 and confirmed on April 22, 2016, is not disputed between the parties, or recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 9.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Plaintiff (1) was awarded a contract for the site preparation work by C around April 2015, and the contract for the rocky project was concluded with D with D, and there was no fact that the contract was concluded with the Defendant. Even if the Defendant is the other party to the said contract, the contract price was already paid in full. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be denied. (2) Since the D who actually manages Defendant E agreed to pay the construction price to E when concluding the contract with the Plaintiff, it is justifiable for the Defendant, a representative of the E’s business registration, claiming the construction price to the Plaintiff.
Since the Plaintiff agreed to pay the construction price to the Defendant through D, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction price of this case to the Defendant.
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 may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer 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 to the claim in the lawsuit of objection to the payment order shall also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is established in the lawsuit of objection against the established payment order.