집행문부여의 소
1. The Seoul Western District Court 2013j. 16379 case between Nonparty D and the Defendant becomes final and conclusive.
1. If the purpose of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap 1 through 4, the facts constituting the grounds for the attached claim asserted by the plaintiff can be acknowledged.
2. The Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired by the Plaintiff was expired, and that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it cannot be recognized as the process of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the above claim. Since the date on which the payment order for the claim for transfer money was served on the Defendant as to the claim that the Plaintiff acquired by the Plaintiff was served to the Defendant on March 27, 2013, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013Hu16379, the date on which the payment order for the claim for transfer money was served to the Defendant was served on March 27, 2013, it is apparent that the period of extinctive prescription (10 years) has not elapsed by the filing date of the instant lawsuit ( June 26, 20
3. As above, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted.