logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.19 2019가단5232720
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was issued a seizure and collection order as to the amount until the amount reaches KRW 205,106,954 out of the claims against the Defendant in the Jeju District Court No. 2012 tea 2696 (No. 2012 tea 2696) against the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, with the title of execution, as to the executory payment order for the claim against the Defendant in the Suwon District Court No. 2019T. 23176 (No. 205,954). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, as the collection

2. Examining the reasoning of each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), the Plaintiff received a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) that accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on June 7, 2012 from the Suwon District Court, upon request by the Plaintiff, etc. for a payment order for the reimbursement of the amount of reimbursement against B, etc. (hereinafter “instant payment order”), the final and conclusive around June 27, 2012, and the Plaintiff received the original copy of the instant payment order on July 1, 2019 from the Jeju District Court as the executive title as to KRW 205,106,954 among the claims against B against the Defendant as the executive title, and it is recognized that the said payment order was served on the Defendant on July 20, 2019.

However, in a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof exists on the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). There is no evidence to acknowledge that B holds claims against the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff against the defendant (the defendant is deemed to have discharged his obligations against B according to each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 6 above), and the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow