logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.06.12 2014가단14145
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s Jeju District Court’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on June 10, 201 against the payment order finalized on June 10, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant, with the Plaintiff and C as the obligor, applied for a payment order stating that “The Defendant lent KRW 50 million to C on November 30, 2014, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to C,” and that “the Plaintiff and C jointly and severally provided the Defendant with the payment order at the rate of KRW 50 million per annum from May 1, 2014 to the delivery date of the original payment order, and at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.”

B. This Court held on June 10, 2014

The payment order of the same content as the claim in this subsection (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued, and upon July 10, 2014, C did not raise any objection against the Plaintiff on July 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the case of a final and conclusive payment order as to the cause of claim, the grounds such as failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in a lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the cause of claim objection shall be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.

Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim for a final and conclusive payment order, where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim had not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the disability or cause of extinction of the right, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claim as a false declaration of prior agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). Therefore, the Plaintiff at the time when the Defendant lent KRW 50 million to C on November 30, 2014.

arrow