beta
Text
The Jeonju District Court 2010 tea2950 against the plaintiff was enforced on the basis of the payment order.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around May 2010, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff and C for a payment order seeking the payment of the loan amounting to KRW 120% per annum, interest rate of KRW 2 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 240% per annum, and due date of payment on June 30, 200, and joint and several surety by the Plaintiff. Of which, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was paid the principal amount of KRW 90,00,000, the former Jeju District Court 2010 tea2950.
B. On May 31, 2010, the above court issued a payment order stating that the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,910,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 49% per annum from June 10, 200 to the full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
C. The instant payment order was finalized on June 22, 2010 for C, and July 20, 2010 for the Plaintiff respectively.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's defense 1) around March 200, when C borrowed money from the defendant, the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order of this case with the defendant around May 2010. Since the defendant's claim has already expired five years of extinctive prescription, compulsory execution against the plaintiff shall not be permitted. 2) In the case of the payment order for which relevant legal principles were finalized, the grounds such as failure or invalidity that occurred before the issuance of the payment order can be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order, and the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection shall be in accordance with the principle of distribution of burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in the lawsuit of objection against the established payment order, the plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of the claim to the defendant.