채무부존재확인 등
1. The part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the confirmation of the existence of an obligation shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7, and in full purport of all pleadings:
From January 27, 2001 to March 20, 2001, the Plaintiff’s child B received hospitalized treatment at the Defendant’s hospital. From January 27, 2001 to March 20, 2001, the medical treatment cost is KRW 10,242,00, the patient’s charge is KRW 5,468,623, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,068,620 among them.
B. On March 20, 2001, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of payment for the payment of KRW 2,400,000 for the unpaid medical expenses (hereinafter “instant medical expenses”) not later than December 31, 2001 and delivered it to the Defendant.
C. On May 7, 2004, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and C seeking payment of KRW 2,400,000 for the aforementioned unpaid medical expenses by means of service by public notice with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gaso89792, and the Defendant was sentenced on December 14, 2004 to the Defendant on December 14, 2004, “The Plaintiff and C jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 2,40,000 and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from December 10, 2004 to the full payment date,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 5, 2005.
On December 5, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and C for a payment order seeking the payment of the medical expenses of the instant case with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea6527, and the said case was implemented as the lawsuit and the lawsuit of Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ghana93124 is pending.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff, under Article 163 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, claimed that the instant medical expenses were not in existence, since the period of extinctive prescription was three years under Article 163 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act, and the period of prescription expired on March 20, 2004, which was three years from March 20, 2001, in which the Plaintiff’s written statement of payment was prepared by the Plaintiff, and the period of prescription expired on March 20, 2004, and that the Defendant’s employee was discharged from the instant obligation due to the occurrence of surgery after surgery. Accordingly,
The Defendant’s treatment costs of this case are assessed against the Plaintiff.