beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.19 2017가단5034236

양수금

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part claiming the amount No. 5 of the [Attachment No. 1] No. 1’s sub-paragraph (c) is from the National Bank.

Reasons

1. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion and evidence No. 8 (including the serial number) as to the above claim, the part dismissed (the part on the claim of KRW 34,819,170 in total) can be known that there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the above claim (Seoul Central District Court 2012DaDa11310666) and it is difficult to view that the lapse of the extinctive prescription period is too excessive and there is no benefit in the claim, and therefore, there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

Thus, the above part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.

2. The part cited [the part claiming the amount of money in the table No. 1-C. 4 of the cause for the claim (the part claiming the claim acquired from an enterprise bank)] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-4, 3-2, 4, 5, 7-1, and 7-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, 7-2 of the evidence Nos. 2-2, 7-1, and 7-2 of the evidence Nos. 1, and the whole arguments are acknowledged. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and delay damages as stated in the Disposition No. 2 of the Disposition (if it is not stated in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors of the defendant, it is difficult to

“The instant lawsuit is asserted to the purport, but it is difficult to view that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of five years from the date of occurrence of the instant claim (from January to March 2012) or from the date of settlement of payment, and the Defendant’s claim is without merit. If so, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable, and thus, this part of the claim is acceptable. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s issuance of the national card can be recognized.

However, with respect to the “each claim listed in the table 1 and 2 in the table 1 and 2 of the grounds for the claim,” the Plaintiff asserts on October 201.