전주지방법원 군산지원 2017.02.16 2016가단55825



1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,844,543 as well as KRW 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to September 20, 2006 and September 20, 2006.


1. The facts of the cause of the claim, such as “the cause of the claim” in the separate sheet of judgment as to the cause of the claim (Provided, That the “creditor” shall be deemed to be “the Plaintiff”, “debtor” shall be deemed to be “the Defendant,” and “the Defendant” shall be deemed to be “the cause of the claim” shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the facts indicated in the evidence A Nos. 1 through 11 [the claim in this case is a claim to prevent the completion of extinctive prescription as to the previous claim, and the fact that the Defendant does not dispute the fact that the cause of the claim itself is in itself).

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may each recognize the fact that the claim of this case against the defendant was transferred before the transfer through a citizen bank (Gu, citizen card), LG card company, LG investment securities company, etc., and the plaintiff, who has the authority to notify the assignment of claims pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes around December 18, 2003 and LG investment securities company, notified the defendant of the fact of the assignment of claims and the delivery of the claims to the defendant to the defendant

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Second, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the claim claim of this case has expired.

In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff applied for a payment order for the claim of this case against the defendant, and when the claim of this case was performed as a lawsuit, it can be acknowledged that he received a judgment citing the plaintiff's claim by the judgment of Jeonju District Court 2006Kadan8950 decided Oct. 29, 2006.

In the instant lawsuit, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 4, 2016, which was before the lapse of ten years from that time.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

In addition, the defendant asserts as the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription through a preparatory document paid on February 10, 2017, which was after the closing of the argument in this case.