양수금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 51,826,463 and KRW 36,421,352 among the Plaintiff, annually, from July 7, 2016 to July 27, 2016.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "National Bank") established and lent KRW 165,00,000 to the defendant on June 14, 2006 as the repayment date, and thereafter extended the repayment date on June 14, 2010. The non-party bank transferred its claim against the defendant to a limited liability company specializing in securitization on March 29, 2013. The above limited liability company transferred its claim against the defendant to the plaintiff on or around December 2015, notified the defendant of the transfer of the claim on or around January 1, 2016, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant on July 6, 2016, KRW 51,826,463 ( principal, principal, and interest, etc.).
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 51,826,463 won and 36,421,352 won with 14.09% per annum under the agreement from July 7, 2016 to July 27, 2016, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's claim was extinguished by the five-year statute of limitations with commercial claims.
Comprehensively taking account of the written evidence No. 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that, upon the application of the Nonparty bank, the auction procedure was initiated to the Daegu District Court C with respect to real estate No. 1003, Daegu Northern-gu, 1003, which was owned by the Defendant, and on May 30, 2013, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 143,042,431 to the limited liability company specializing in the case-backed securitization.
On July 8, 2016, before five years have passed since the completion of the above dividend payment, the fact that the plaintiff filed an application for the payment order of this case on July 8, 2016 is apparent in the record. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim has not been completed by prescription, and the defendant'
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.