beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the payment order in the instant case for goods payment.
Reasons
1. On August 28, 2015, the Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the price of the goods and damages for delay on the ground that the Defendant had a claim for the price of the goods in KRW 8,687,993 against the Plaintiff by this court as the ground for the claim against the Plaintiff, and the payment order issued on September 2, 2015 by this court was the same month.
7. A service was made on the 22th of the same month.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff company and the non-party company are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount equivalent to the above price of the goods on the ground that the plaintiff company applied for the payment order against the non-party company Eul Co., Ltd. for the payment order against the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), and the non-party company guaranteed the non-party company's obligation to pay the above price of the goods. However, the plaintiff company did not have guaranteed the non-party company's obligation to pay the above price of the goods or promised to pay the above price of the goods. The non-party C, the representative director of the plaintiff company, promises to pay the above amount of 1,00,000 won per month if the non-party company is not individually liable to pay the above amount to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's enforcement based on the above payment order
3. In light of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 to 6, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff company has a liability to pay the defendant with respect to the non-party company's obligation to pay the price for the goods. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
4. If so, the defendant's claim for the price of goods against the plaintiff stated in the order of payment stated in the order was not existed from the beginning.
Since compulsory execution based on the above payment order is no longer permissible.