양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The allegations and judgment of the parties
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(However, the creditor's "the plaintiff and the debtor" are deemed to be the defendant). 【The ground for recognition - The statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the inquiry results and the whole purport of arguments against the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank, Solomon Savings Bank, the bankruptcy debtor corporation, the Korea Deposit Insurance
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s argument that the Defendant did not receive any notification on the assignment of each of the instant claims, and that the extinctive prescription period has expired. 2) According to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, who was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by the transferor, Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, New Card Co., Ltd., New Card Co., Ltd., Ltd., and KSNN National Card Co., Ltd., Ltd., may recognize the fact that the Defendant sent the notice of the assignment of claims to the Defendant
3) ① Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and Solomon Mutual Savings Bank have passed five years from July 1, 2010 and June 11, 2010, respectively, the date of the credit transfer. ② The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer amount against the Defendant regarding the new credit card claim of this case, which was rendered a favorable judgment on April 14, 2010. However, it is insufficient to prove that the claim of this case was identical to the new credit card claim of this case, and even if it was the same credit, there was no benefit of protection of rights since the ten-year extinctive prescription period has not expired. The date of the occurrence of the claim is around 200, and each of the claims of the Klomon Mutual Savings Bank’s national credit card of this case has expired from around 205 to 206, and it is reasonable to view that each of the claims of this case was extinguished by the prescription period of this case.
2. For this reason, the Plaintiff.