beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff for the cost of goods at Seoul Central District Court No. 2014Hu217280 is enforceable.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed an application for a payment order as of April 26, 1996 with the Seoul Central District Court 201Hu217280 on September 23, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 8,623,00,00 in the aggregate of the overdue interest accrued until September 23, 2014 as the Plaintiff did not pay the payment of KRW 8,623,00,00 (hereinafter “instant book payment claim”); and (b) the Defendant did not seek the payment of KRW 1,869,00 (hereinafter “instant book payment claim”); and (c) filed an application for a payment order as of September 23, 2014 with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Hu217280 on September 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not confirm the payment order.
Based on the instant payment order, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s new bank, Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TTTT18977, and received KRW 8,683,109 from the new bank, a new bank, a stock company, as the collection amount on November 25, 2014.
[Evidence] Each entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. (1) Determination as to the existence of a claim for island price of this case does not take place since res judicata takes place even if the payment order becomes final and conclusive, the debtor on the payment order can assert the absence or invalidity of the claim on the grounds prior to the issuance of the payment order. As can be seen, where the debtor files a lawsuit with the debtor claiming the absence of the claim on the payment order established, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim exists in the creditor who requested the payment order, and where the claim is invalidated or extinguished by repayment, the burden of proof as to the occurrence or extinction of the right exists
In this case, the plaintiff asserts that he did not purchase the books claimed by the defendant, so the defendant must prove the existence or establishment of the claim for the price of the book of this case, and there is no proof as to this.
(2) The instant case.