beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff at the Jeonju District Court Order No. 2014 tea501 dated January 22, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff; (b) filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff with the Jeonju District Court 2014 tea501.
B. On January 22, 2014, the Jeonju District Court issued an order to the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 15,00,000 and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 1, 2013 to the service date of the payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above payment order was finalized on April 4, 2014.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The error of judgment and the payment order are final and conclusive and the res judicata does not take place, and thus, the restriction pursuant to the time limit of res judicata does not apply to a lawsuit seeking an objection to the claim. Therefore, the failure or invalidity of the claim becomes a ground for objection. In the hearing of the objection to the claim, the determination of the grounds for objection as stated in the payment order may also be made on the payment order. In this case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the obligee, i.e.
I would like to say.
According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant lent the above KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff around August 22, 2013. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the above borrowed money and damages for delay to the Defendant, barring any special circumstances.
I would like to say.
In regard to this, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s above loan was paid as gambling money, and thus constitutes illegal consideration. Therefore, in full view of the following facts, the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant lend money to the Defendant for gambling money while making a loan to the Plaintiff at the time of lending the above money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant knew of the above circumstances.