{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2004-80",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:7a70cab1d9950293300a6bce04b69d08555d1cf76f671387d63a3035791261ce",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2004:80, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2004-80",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2004-80",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2004:80, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: I ärende om verkställighet av dom på betalningsförpliktelse har sökanden ansetts ha bevisbördan för sitt påstående om att betalning som ostridigt erlagts avsett något annat än den gäldenärens skuld som ansökan om verkställighet har avsett.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 2004."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2004-80",
  "softwareVersion": "3f6dc20fad992684",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2004-80, RH 2004:80, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2004-80 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:2d70a3c1571becf5, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/rh-2004-80/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:7a70cab1d9950293300a6bce04b69d08555d1cf76f671387d63a3035791261ce",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:7a70cab1d9950293300a6bce04b69d08555d1cf76f671387d63a3035791261ce",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T07:05:07.786Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2004-80",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}