(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.01.12 2019가단83271

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.01.12 2019가단83271

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment on the loan case No. 2019 A, group 192, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s current and future multi-level salesman’s allowance claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant collection claim”), and served on the Defendant as the Defendant on November 7, 2019, the original copy of the judgment on the seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant as the Defendant as the obligor on November 3, 2019. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, the amount of the claim under the above collection order, KRW 153,33,833, which is the amount of the claim under the above collection order, and the delayed damages therefrom.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of collection claims asserted by the Plaintiff and its amount only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff filed an order against the defendant to submit a document, and the defendant did not submit the document, and thus, the plaintiff asserts that the effect of Article 349 of the Civil Procedure Act should be recognized, and accordingly the plaintiff's claim of this case should be recognized.

Article 349 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party does not comply with an order to submit a document, the court may admit that the allegations of the other party as to the entries in the document prove true.

“” provides for the purport that “.

However, in this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the statement in the document for which the Plaintiff seeks to submit the document in the order to submit is apparent in the record that “the Defendant had a duty to pay allowances to C and has paid them.” Thus, even if it is recognized that “the Defendant incurred allowances to C and paid them,” the existence and scope of the claim for collection of this case cannot be known at the time when the original copy of the decision to issue a collection order was served on the Defendant, or thereafter, the existence and scope of the claim

If so, the effect of Article 349 of the Civil Procedure Act is recognized as alleged by the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2021.01.12 2019가단83271

-창원지방법원 2020.07.17 2019나1590

-청주지방법원 2018.12.18 2018고단1377

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.06.03 2019가단6762

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단32927