beta
Text
1. It is based on the payment order issued on June 7, 2010 (2010j 2437) against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 34.2 million and its delay damages on the ground that “the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 34.2 million due to the fraudulent use of the credit card in the Defendant’s name” as the cause of the claim, and the payment order as indicated in the disposition on June 7, 2010 is the instant payment order.
(2) Upon receipt of the instant payment order, the payment order was served and finalized on the Plaintiff around that time. Around that time, the Defendant filed an application for an auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate with the title of execution for the instant payment order and rendered a decision to commence auction on May 13, 2015 (the Gwangju District Court Net Branch C, the claimed amount: KRW 34.2 million). In addition, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s claim against the financial institution (the third party debtor) with the title of execution for the instant payment order and received a seizure and collection order (the Gwangju District Court 2015TY 201, the claim amount: 48,306,465 won) on May 29, 2015.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since a credit information company and the plaintiff who represented the defendant after the payment order of this case became final and conclusive, an agreement between the credit information company and the plaintiff to adjust the principal and interest of the debt and to make installment payments was concluded, the contents of the changed debt are modified and the performance of the changed debt is normally carried out, and since there was an agreement to make installment payments at the time of the installment payment agreement, it is unreasonable for the
B. Since the agreement on the installment payment of the defendant's assertion became invalid due to the plaintiff's default, the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is legitimate.
3. Determination
A. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 (including the above number) and the facts of recognition, the defendant has become final and conclusive after the payment order of this case.