Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sklep III Cp 1650/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:III.CP.1650.99 AI generated

Court dismisses debtor's objection due to lack of evidence for debt payment claim.

Case Number VSL sklep III Cp 1650/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court rejected the debtor's objection to a seizure and sale order, confirming the enforcement proceeding. The debtor claimed they had paid the debt immediately upon receiving the enforcement order, but provided no evidence to support this assertion. Since the objection lacked any factual basis or documentary proof, the court ruled it unfounded under the Enforcement Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ), 2. odstavek 53. člen; Zakon o pravdnem postopku (ZPP), 2. točka 365. člen: An objection to enforcement proceedings is deemed unfounded and must be rejected if the objector fails to provide any evidence or argument substantiating their claim of debt satisfaction.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement objection burden of proof debt payment seizure and sale unfounded objection

Cited Legislation

AI generated
2nd paragraph of Article 53 of the Enforcement and Security Act (ZIZ)
Article 2, point 365 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPP)
AI generated
VSL sklep III Cp 2109/99
Court dismisses debtor's hardship objection and allows creditor's appeal for corrected enforcement costs.
VSL sodba I Cp 3254/2012
Court partially allows appeal on interest start date but dismisses claimant's lack of standing argument.
VSM sodba I Cp 254/2011
Appeal court vacates enforcement order regarding unpaid service charges against condominium management company.
VSL sklep III Cp 2128/99
Court dismisses appeal against enforcement order when debtor admits debt but fails to prove procedural defects.
VSK sodba I Cp 338/2006
Appeal dismissed; water supplier's liability to bill resident unaffected by co-occupier's unpaid status.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Ugovor se zavrne in se sklep o izvršbi potrdi.

[JEDRO]

Ker dolžnica o zatrjevanem plačilu dolga v ugovoru ni niti navedla niti predložila nobenega dokaza, je ugovor neutemeljen in se kot tak zavrne.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Z izpodbijanim sklepom je sodišče na podlagi verodostojne listine dovolilo izvršbo z rubežem in prodajo dolžničinih premičnin zaradi izterjave glavnice 4.081,00 SIT, zamudnih obresti 530,00 SIT in izvršilnih stroškov 14.244,00 SIT z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi.

Dolžnica v ugovoru zatrjuje, da je dolg, čeprav o njegovem obstoju pred izvršbo ni bila obveščena, takoj po prejemu sklepa o izvršbi plačala in o tem obvestila tudi upnika.

Sklep naj se zato razveljavi.

Sodišče prve stopnje je ugovor predložilo višjemu sodišču, da o njem odloči kot o pritožbi (4. odst. 62. člena ZIZ).

Ugovor ni utemeljen.

Za svoje trditve o plačilu izterjevanega dolga dolžnica ni niti navedla, niti predložila nikakršnega dokaza. Ker torej ugovor v smislu določila 2. odstavka 53. člena Zakona o izvršbi in zavarovanju (ZIZ) ni obrazložen, se po istem predpisu šteje kot neutemeljen. Pritožbeno sodišče ga je zato v skladu z določilom 2. točke 365. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP) v zvezi s 15. členom ZIZ zavrnilo in izpodbijani sklep o izvršbi potrdilo.