양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 64,456,449 and the amount of KRW 23,795,437 from November 13, 2007.
1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. The facts acknowledged: (a) A) A non-indicted 2007da75702, which was the first securitization company, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the revocation of fraudulent act, etc., and was sentenced by this court to the judgment that “the Defendant would pay the money as stated in the order to the Plaintiff,” and this judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2009. (ii) A non-indicted 2, a limited liability company specializing in the second securitization of the said paragraph, transferred the claim under the said paragraph to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the transfer at that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts, absence of dispute, entry of evidence A No. 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings
B. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the same money as the written order.
2. Determination as to the defendant's defense of the extinction of the statute of limitations on commercial claims
A. The gist of the assertion was that the instant commercial claim expired upon the completion of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period from July 4, 2010, when five years have elapsed since the date of transferring the instant claim to a limited liability company specializing in the YYYYGGGE on July 4, 2005.
B. As to the facts acknowledged in paragraphs 1 and 1-1 above, it can be recognized that a limited liability company specializing in the securitization of the first securitization of the claim of this case, which is the transferor of the claim of this case, filed a judicial claim against the defendant around 2007 and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 29, 2009 by the judgment. As to the claim of this case, the statute of limitations asserted by the defendant was interrupted by the above judicial claim, and the fact that the new ten-year statute of limitations has not elapsed after the final and conclusive judgment was recognized by the defendant, and therefore, the defendant's defense as to the statute of limitations cannot be acknowledged.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.