beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s execution of the purchase price of goods against the Plaintiff is the Suwon District Court 2017 tea 284.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As of February 10, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and C as the Suwon District Court 2017Hu284, 2017, by supplying all food materials and industrial products from March 1, 2016 to the workplace operated by the Plaintiff and C, the husband of the Plaintiff, and applying for payment order against the Plaintiff and C, as the claim is that the price for the goods not received from the Plaintiff and C as of February 10, 2017 reaches KRW 64,328,26
B. On February 24, 2017, the above court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff and C jointly and severally pay to the Defendant 64,328,263 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.” The instant payment order was finalized as it is.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. 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 against the claim should 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). B.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the parties to the transaction of the goods with the defendant, taking into account each entry of Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4-2.