logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원파주시법원 2016.10.14 2015가단50090
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 19,000,000 and damages for delay on the ground that the Defendant had a claim against the Plaintiff for a loan of KRW 19,00,000 against the Plaintiff by this court (hereinafter referred to as this court) as the ground for the claim, and this court rendered a judgment accepting the entire claim on July 26, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2013.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in a case where the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff in fraud, no agreement was reached on September 11, 2015, and that, during the investigation process, documents (a statement of construction cost expenditure) proving that Nonparty C, the Defendant’s fraud, repaid KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant was found. According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above final judgment should not be allowed since it is apparent that the above C fully repaid to the Defendant the above amount of KRW 20,00,000,000.

3. On the other hand, the grounds for raising an objection against the final and conclusive judgment should have arisen after the conclusion of pleadings in the final and conclusive judgment (Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and on the other hand, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff incurred after June 28, 2013, which is the closing date of pleadings in the final and conclusive judgment, since the fact that the Plaintiff asserted “payment of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant, who is the fraudulent act of the Defendant,” which is alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for the objection of this case, constituted “payment of KRW 20,000 to the Defendant

5. There is no need to examine whether or not there was a document stating the details of payment up to November 1, and whether or not there was a fact of reimbursement as alleged by the Plaintiff, the said reason alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be a ground for objection against the said final judgment.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of executory power of the above final judgment is groundless, and it is dismissed.

arrow