beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff and the defendant are dead money.
B. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant lent KRW 140 million to the Plaintiff.
C. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Suwon District Court Branch Branch No. 2016 tea41, seeking payment of “190 million won per annum from November 1, 2016 to the service day of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment,” and received payment order from the above court on December 8, 2016.
The above payment order was finalized on December 28, 2016 because the plaintiff did not object to the payment order.
The payment order of this case is called ‘the payment order of this case'.
(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 135 million to the Defendant, so compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not exceed KRW 5 million (= KRW 190 million - KRW 135 million).
3. Fact that there is no dispute over judgment, and according to the entry of Gap evidence 2, the plaintiff on March 31, 2015 and the same year.
9.22. It is recognized that a total of KRW 135 billion has been repaid to the Defendant.
However, the authenticity of each of the above documents is presumed to have been established since there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image affixed to the Plaintiff’s name of Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 of Eul (including a serial number) was affixed to the stamp number, and Nos. 3 (No. 4) and No. 4 (No. 4) was affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal, since there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image affixed to the Plaintiff’s name was affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal. The Plaintiff issued the Plaintiff’s seal and a certificate of personal seal to prepare a loan certificate against the Defendant against the Defendant, but the amount stated in No. 3 (No. 4) was written as KRW 190 million without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the document concluding a mortgage contract (No. 4) was also forged. However, in full view of the respective entries and arguments, the Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge it.