양수금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 3, 2018, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance. In full view of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings in the instant case, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant to the judgment of first instance on August 28, 2008 by serving the litigation procedures through service by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint against the Defendant. The Defendant appears to have known of the fact that the judgment of the first instance and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice only on July 31, 2018. Thus, the subsequent completion appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant bears the credit card payment of KRW 3,762,230 as of March 6, 2002, and KRW 10,903,80 as of August 6, 2001, E, and KRW 16,059,049 as of August 28, 2001, total of KRW 1,393,019, and delayed payment damages. However, since D Bank and E transferred the above claims to the plaintiff on May 13, 2005, and notified the defendant of each transfer of claims on June 16, 2005, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the above claims, KRW 16,059,049, and damages for delay already incurred, and KRW 17% as of June 17, 200, respectively.
B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff did not submit evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion. 2) Even if there were claims as alleged by the Plaintiff, the period of extinctive prescription is five years with commercial claims pursuant to the main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant on August 28, 2001 or on December 11, 2007 after five years from March 6, 2002, which was alleged by the Plaintiff as the date of the occurrence of each of the above claims, is apparent in the record. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was already extinguished by extinctive prescription prior to the institution of the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.
The plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription was extended to 10 years due to the confirmation of the lawsuit of this case, but the lawsuit of this case is formal.