대여금(소멸시효연장을 위한)
1. Claim established as a payment order in the loan case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in Incheon District Court 2009 tea796.
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff applied for a payment order against the defendant for a loan payment order with the Incheon District Court 2009Da7796, Jul. 3, 2009, stating that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,400,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from March 1, 2003 to the full payment, and 34,900 won for demand procedure." The above payment order was served on the defendant on July 9, 2009 and confirmed on July 24, 2009, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the payment order on July 18, 2019.
2. In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, etc., a judgment obligee may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only with the confirmation that there was a “judicial claim” for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018). The Plaintiff seeks confirmation as to the existence of the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above payment order. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is justified and recognized as well as the benefit of confirmation.
On February 1, 2012, the Defendant received a ruling of bankruptcy and exemption from liability as the Suwon District Court Decision 201Hadan1186, 2011Da1186, 2011, and the Plaintiff’s claim was omitted, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim also has the effect of immunity. However, in a new form of litigation seeking confirmation, the subject matter of lawsuit is limited to the legal relationship of interruption of prescription through a judicial claim for interruption of prescription with respect to a specific claim for which judgment became final and conclusive without exclusion of the substantive existence and scope of the claim, and there is no need to deliberate on the existence and existence of the claim including the completion of extinctive prescription and the substantive legal relationship such as the scope of the claim (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Da232316, Oct. 18, 2018).