logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.26 2019나58904
청구이의의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

Reasons

1. Article 2-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the judgment of the court of first instance is stated.

With the exception of the appeal as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts in height:

B. 1) Determination 1) In the case of a final and conclusive payment order, the grounds for failure or invalidation that occurred prior to the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer against the payment order. In the lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection should also be in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff claims that the claims were not constituted the defendant's claims in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, the defendant is responsible for proving the facts of the claims, and in the case where the plaintiff claims the facts that constitute the grounds for disability or extinction of rights, such as the invalidity or extinguishment of the claims caused by false declaration or by repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove such facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). According to the above recognition facts, it is reasonable to view that the outstanding amount claims in this case constitute the consideration for the goods sold by the merchant under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act for three years.

Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the outstanding claim of this case is completed after the lapse of December 30, 2014, and the defendant applied for a payment order for the payment of the outstanding claim of this case on May 3, 2016, which is after the expiration of the above extinctive prescription and received the payment order of this case. Thus, it is based on the payment order of this case.

arrow