beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff was made based on the payment order of the advertising payment case in Busan District Court 2004 tea 30076.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) issued a payment order against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) with Busan District Court Decision 2004Da3076, 2002, claiming payment of KRW 1,430,000 for advertising price due to the advertisement on the telephone number book, and its delay damages. On July 27, 2004, the above court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Nonparty Co., Ltd. the amount of KRW 1,430,00 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served to the Plaintiff on August 4, 2004, and was finalized as it is on August 19, 204.
B. On November 30, 2010, the non-party company filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the debtor as the plaintiff and the third debtor as the D, E, and F, Co., Ltd., and with the plaintiff's claim to be seized and collected as each deposit claim against the third debtor against the above third debtor based on the instant payment order, and the above court issued the seizure and collection order (hereinafter "the seizure and collection order of the claim of this case") on November 30, 201.
C. The defendant acquired the claim on the payment order of this case from the non-party company and received the succession execution clause on the payment order of this case from the Busan District Court.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Some of the Plaintiff’s assertion was asserted.
① The Plaintiff was forced from Nonparty Company to run an advertisement on the 2002 phone number book, but clearly stated that the Plaintiff did not intend to run the advertisement, and in fact, did not run the advertisement on the 2002 phone number book, so there is no advertising payment obligation for Nonparty Company.
② Even if the Plaintiff’s advertising payment liability exists with respect to the non-party company.