beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the original copy of the loan payment order in Seoul Northern District Court 2013 tea500.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 10, 2013, the Defendant leased the Plaintiff and C KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2013 tea5000, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation, and filed an application for payment order claiming the above loan KRW 20 million and delayed payment damages therefor with the above court’s payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
B. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the instant payment order, and the said payment order was finalized on October 31, 2013 as the Plaintiff did not raise an objection.
C. In filing an application for the instant payment order, the Defendant submitted a cash borrowed loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), and all of the content of the instant loan certificate, including the amount of the loan certificate, the debtor, and the creditor’s personal information, etc. were prepared in a dives book, and the corporate seal of the corporation is affixed to the name of the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made by C without the Plaintiff’s consent, and there is no validity against the Plaintiff. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be rejected.
B. 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 objection against the payment order. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in the lawsuit of objection is in accordance with the principle of the burden of proof distribution in the general civil procedure. Therefore, in the case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim against the final and conclusive payment order was not established in the lawsuit of objection, the defendant is liable to prove the grounds for the claim.