신용카드이용대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 2, 2002, the Plaintiff (formerly: LG card Co., Ltd.) entered into a substitute repayment agreement with the Defendant setting the interest rate of KRW 19% per annum on 2,540,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant on April 2, 2002, with the rate of KRW 19% per annum, 20 months during the substitute repayment period, and 25% per annum. At the time, B, the Defendant’s representative director, was a joint and several
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). B.
As the Defendant delayed repayment of the principal and interest on the above debt, the Plaintiff completed the provisional attachment registration on May 6, 2004 with regard to the Cone Star or Vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) by obtaining the Busan District Court Decision 2004Kadan17150 on May 1, 2004, with regard to the claim for reimbursement of the principal and interest on the instant substitute loan.
C. Meanwhile, the instant vehicle was scrapped on the grounds that it exceeded the age limit, and its registration was cancelled on July 22, 2010.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 6, 10 through 12, 14 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment of the parties concerned claimed 10,329,439 won (i.e., the principal 2,093,765 won plus the principal 239,617 won plus 7,96,057 won) and damages for delay against principal 2,093,765 won out of the above money, which are the remainder of principal and interest of the claim of the substitute loan of this case. The defendant asserted that the claim of the substitute loan of this case has expired by prescription.
On July 22, 2010 where the registration of the instant vehicle was cancelled on July 22, 2010, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s claim for the exchange loan of this case was made on November 22, 201, and the extinctive prescription has again run as the preservation of execution by provisional seizure was invalidated. Since it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim for the exchange loan of this case was filed on November 22, 2016, five years after the said lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff’s claim for the exchange loan of this case was filed.