logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단41439
청구이의의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asked B to purchase a passenger car, thereby acquiring the Plaintiff’s vehicle C on April 15, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”). During that process, the Plaintiff obtained a loan from the HK Savings Bank (hereinafter “HK Savings Bank”) for the installment payment of the instant passenger car. On May 8, 2013, in collusion with B and E, the Plaintiff was merely holding the instant passenger car for 23 days, and the Plaintiff was liable to pay excessive loans.

HK Savings Bank transferred its claim against the Plaintiff on November 20, 2014 to the Defendant. On March 17, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2015Hu13542, but the Plaintiff was not served on the Plaintiff, and thus, was transferred to the Seoul Northern District Court 2015Da396136, and the Defendant was judged in favor of the Plaintiff in the said litigation procedure, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

However, for the above reasons, the above amount in the final and conclusive judgment is unfair, so compulsory execution based thereon should be rejected.

2. In a case where an executive title subject to an objection is a final and conclusive judgment in a lawsuit seeking objection, the reason should arise after the closure of pleadings in the said lawsuit, and even if an obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure of pleadings, the circumstance that occurred earlier cannot be deemed as the ground for objection, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance and was unable to assert it before the closure

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728 Decided May 27, 2005, etc.). The Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of objection is a circumstance that the Plaintiff had already generated or could have claimed prior to the closure of pleadings in the Seoul Northern District Court case No. 2015Da396136, which became final and conclusive.

arrow