양수금
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. On December 11, 1995, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the liability for indemnity against the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.
(A) Nos. 6-1, 2). Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the Defendant (Seoul District Court 99Da1063232), and on February 22, 2000, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. rendered a judgment ordering the payment of the above amount of reimbursement (Evidence 7-1, 200). < Amended by Act No. 6313, Mar. 8, 2000>
Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit again to extend the prescription period of the above final judgment (Seoul District Court 2009da2321633), and on September 29, 2009, the decision of performance recommendation ordering the payment of the above amount of indemnity (Evidence A7-2), which became final and conclusive on October 209.
On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff, a transferee of the claim for the above amount of reimbursement, filed the instant lawsuit in order to extend the prescription period for the decision on performance recommendation.
2. According to the above facts, the 10-year extinctive prescription period from the date when the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the Plaintiff, the assignee of the above-mentioned claims may claim the interruption of extinctive prescription period (Article 169 of the Civil Act). (Article 169 of the Civil Act), and compulsory execution may be conducted with the execution clause succeeded to the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation.
(Article 5-8(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act. As of the date of closing argument of this case, the extinctive prescription period of the claim for reimbursement remains approximately three years, there is no benefit to protect the rights of the lawsuit of this case.
3. Conclusion, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.