양수금
1. Of the lawsuit in this case, the lawsuit against the claims acquired from Tyman Loan Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed.
2...
1. On November 11, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009GaBa1943313 filed a lawsuit against the defendant, and it can be recognized that the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2009. Accordingly, the plaintiff can be subject to compulsory execution by obtaining succession of execution clause according to the above final and conclusive judgment, and since the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been subject to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period under the above final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff's legal interest in the protection of rights has no interest in the plaintiff's right.
2. The judgment on the cause of the claim (Provided, That the creditor is the plaintiff and the debtor is the defendant) is not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 (including the serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from February 29, 2016 to the day of full payment of the final interest calculated with respect to the total amount of KRW 37,186,168 and the principal amount of KRW 10,229,082 among the total amount of the principal and interest of the new credit card transfer deposit claims.
3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the claim of the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription. However, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5, the EL Branch Card Co., Ltd. that transferred the Plaintiff’s credit card claim against the Defendant, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for payment of the said claim under Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Gaso2711, and sentenced the judgment which was wholly quoted in the claim on May 9, 2006, and sentenced on May 23, 2006.