(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가단263384

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가단263384

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's order for payment of the purchase price of goods is based on the Seoul Southern District Court Order 2018Hu139199 against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant entered into an agency contract with a limited liability company (hereinafter “D”) and supplied goods from April 30, 2010 to August 24, 2012. The unpaid goods amounting to KRW 70,178,032, and filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiffs, a joint guarantor, with Seoul Southern District Court 2018 tea139199. Accordingly, the said court on July 19, 2018: “The Plaintiffs jointly and severally agreed to the Defendant, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 26, 2018 to the date of complete payment,” and the payment order was served on the Plaintiffs on July 25, 2018 and became final and conclusive to the Plaintiffs on July 28, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.

The defendant applied for compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the plaintiff Eul to Gwangju District Court E upon the payment order of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of a payment order for which relevant legal principles have become final and conclusive, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall also be in accordance with the principle of burden of proof distribution in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant, the plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim to the defendant, and where the plaintiff asserts that the claim is invalid or extinguished as a false declaration of conspiracy or due to repayment, etc., the plaintiff is liable to prove the fact.

On the other hand, the extinctive prescription for the guaranteed obligation is interrupted.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가단263384

-수원지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단17460

-광주지방법원순천지원고흥군법원 2020.09.21 2020가단5012

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.12.12 2018가단6906

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단51252