beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s order of payment is based on the payment order issued on April 21, 2014, the Suwon District Court, Osan-si, the Defendant of the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 21, 2014, Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guj971 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) issued a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 45 million for service costs. The payment order was issued on April 9, 2014. The above payment order was finalized on May 9, 2014.
B. On May 20, 2014, based on the claim for payment order issued by Suwon District Court Decision 201j3313, the Defendant received a decision to seize and collect the claim against the Plaintiff as the instant payment order bond against the Defendant, the obligor, the obligor, the third obligor, the claim amount of KRW 119,359,621, and the claim transfer amount of the claims to be seized and collected. The above decision was served on the Plaintiff, the third obligor, on May 22, 2014.
C. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant, as a successor to sub-act, was granted the instant payment order against the Plaintiff of sub-act, based on which the execution clause on succession to the instant payment order was granted. Based on this, on July 9, 2014, the Defendant issued a collection order, each of which was issued to the creditor, the debtor, the garnishee, the Bank of Korea, the New Bank of Korea, the Bank of Korea, the claim amounting to 46,97,584 won, the claim amounting to 46,97,584 won, and the claim amount to be seized and collected against the third party debtor of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the creditor, the debtor, the third party debtor, the Industrial Bank of Korea, the claim amounting to 47,931,936 won, and the Plaintiff’s third party debtor’s deposit claim to be collected and the collection order was issued as follows:
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence of No. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 4-1, 2]
2. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that, as the Plaintiff and the subordinate factoring agreed to extinguish the instant payment order claim against the Plaintiff on the basis of the instant payment order, compulsory execution by the Defendant based on the instant payment order should be denied.
Domins, Gap No. 4,