(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.07 2016나46788

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.07 2016나46788

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1. of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. According to the entries in the evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on January 28, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court 2014Guj28020, and the said court issued a payment order on February 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment order”) and served the Plaintiff with the original copy on March 10, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto, thereby recognizing the fact that the instant payment order became final and conclusive on March 25, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant and did not bear the Defendant’s obligation, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant payment order against the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. On December 30, 2009, the Defendant lent the loan amount of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff at the annual interest rate of KRW 48%, and transferred the loan amount to D who works for the C certified judicial scrivener office in accordance with the agreement with the Plaintiff.

However, since the Plaintiff failed to pay it and applied for a payment order and received the payment order of this case, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order of this case is lawful.

3. The evidence No. 3 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant lent the remaining evidence submitted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2009, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff bears the obligation against the Defendant, and it is unlawful for the Defendant to enforce compulsory execution based on the original copy of the instant payment order against the Plaintiff.

I would like to say.

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the defendant against the plaintiff."

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.02 2014가단207779

-전주지방법원 2020.10.22 2019나7986

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.28 2018가단5821

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.22 2016가합3455

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.01 2016가단217417