beta
Text
1. The defendant's case of the purchase price for goods at the Goyang-si District Court 2013Da2441, Goyang-si Court 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 4, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods between B and B (hereinafter “B”) within the limit of KRW 100,000,000 (including value-added tax) that the Defendant orders the Defendant from December 4, 2012 to December 3, 2013, within the limit of KRW 100,000,000 (including value-added tax), and B supplied goods to the Defendant by the end of the following month, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the goods to B under the said contract.
B. From January 2013 to September 2013, 2013, the Defendant filed a joint claim for the payment order against B, the Plaintiff, and C, as the High Government District Court Decision 2013 tea 2441, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order for the amount of KRW 53,413,800 payable and the delay damages therefor, out of the amount of goods supplied to B from January 2, 2013 to September 2013. The said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on December 16, 2013, and became final and conclusive on December 31, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). 【No dispute exists concerning the payment order of this case’s / [Grounds for recognition], Gap evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, and 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 the general civil procedure.
Therefore, if the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection against the established payment order, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). B.
According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, the defendant is awarded a contract from B for the goods equivalent to KRW 48,558,00 (excluding value-added tax) around August 29, 2013 and around September 2, 2013.