beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.12 2018가단5031456

양수금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As of January 3, 2018, the Defendant bears the following obligations with respect to loans granted from the National Bank of Korea on the basis of January 3, 2018. Serially, the Defendant: (a) on January 30, 203, 5,000,500,5004,501,3419,501,341,3412 National Bank Guarantee Loan 3412, Apr. 15, 2008; (b) on April 30, 2008, 35,000,0000, 26,852,8152,852,181 totaled 35,00,000,0031, 353,526, 3526, 35222); (c) the National Bank of Korea delegated the Plaintiff’s authority under Article 7(1) of the Asset Transfer Contracts and Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the same amount as that of the claim.

B. Each of the instant claims asserted by the Defendant was a commercial claim and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in evidence Nos. 5 and 6-1 and 2, a national bank that transferred each of the instant claims to the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have become final and conclusive on October 18, 2012, upon filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim under the Seoul Central District Court No. 20107131, Apr. 24, 2013 upon winning the judgment in favor of the Defendant on May 28, 2013. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2013. In relation to the said claim No. 2, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim under the same court No. 2013Ga57106, Feb. 28, 2013; and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 27, 2013 upon winning the judgment in favor of the Defendant on August 8, 2013.

However, according to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the ten-year lapse period, which is the extinctive prescription period of each of the claims of this case, has expired based on the date of closing of argument in this case, and otherwise, the benefit of litigation for the extension of prescription can be recognized.