logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.03 2014가단100418
청구이의
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the records, upon the commission of B and the Defendant on July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff (former title prior to the change: Health0 Medical Consumer Cooperatives) bears the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 46,300,000 on November 28, 2012. By December 3, 2013, the said obligation shall be repaid by the Defendant until December 3, 2013, and if the Defendant fails to perform this, the fact that a notarial deed written in the purport of the claim that recognizes the existence of no objection is written can be acknowledged.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed as alleged by the defendant has already been completed, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case.

B. The facts of recognition 1) After the Defendant granted execution clause to the above notarial deed, on October 31, 2014, based on the above notarial deed as Busan District Court 2014TTT28129, the Defendant applied for the seizure and collection order of the above notarial deed with the sum of KRW 46,30,000, interest of KRW 8,102,50, enforcement cost of the above notarial deed, KRW 25,500, and KRW 54,428,000, the debtor, the third debtor, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the third debtor applied for the seizure and collection order of the above notarial deed, based on the amount from the medical expense payment amount of the Plaintiff's national health insurance, and on October 31, 2014, the above court filed a collection order of KRW 46,30,00,000, interest of KRW 8,102,500,00,000,000.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions in Gap 1 and Eul 8, and the facts alleged to this court

C. According to the above facts of recognition, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed has already been completed on December 31, 2014, which was before the closing of argument in the instant case, by the Defendant’s above collection report.

As such, it shall be the same.

arrow