beta
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.10.19 2016가단44320

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C around February 5, 2007, lent KRW 1550 million to the Plaintiff, and around March 2007, repaid KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff.

B. On April 23, 2015, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for payment order seeking payment of KRW 1550 million for acquisition money as KRW 2015,000,000,000,000 from C, and statutory damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, on the ground that the Defendant acquired the loan claim amounting to KRW 155,50,000 from C.

C. On June 19, 2015, Suwon District Court issued a payment order with the same content as the Defendant’s application on June 19, 2015, however, on November 6, 2015, upon the Defendant’s application for reduction of the purport of the application, the Suwon District Court corrected the principal amount of the above payment order at KRW 150 million as KRW 55 million.

C on June 28, 2016, the content-certified mail sent to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff transferred the claim for the loan amounting to KRW 55 million to the Defendant, and the above content-certified mail was served on June 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. First, the plaintiff asserted that he paid the debt of KRW 55 million to C in full on February 5, 2007. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Second, the Plaintiff asserts that, since the Plaintiff, at the time of borrowing, engaged in entertainment drinking club maize and engaged in commercial activities under his/her name, he/she borrowed money from C for his/her business, the above loan claims constituted commercial claims and the period of extinctive prescription expires five years.

According to the witness C’s testimony, at the time of borrowing KRW 150 million from C, the Plaintiff worked as a marina in the entertainment drinking house in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, and the Plaintiff was confined by himself from the owner of the said entertainment drinking house.