양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The facts that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt owed to C, that the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the above loan from C Co., Ltd., that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the acquisition of the loan amount under the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2006Da39386, Nov. 1, 2006, which became final and conclusive on December 22, 2006, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to the favorable judgment to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim on November 1, 2006, which became final and conclusive on December 22, 2006, may be recognized under either the dispute between the parties or the evidence 1-1 and 2, barring any special circumstance
On March 21, 2018, 10 years after the date when the judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription has expired since the Plaintiff applied for a payment order on March 21, 2018, and the Plaintiff re-claimed that the extinctive prescription had been interrupted due to the participation in the bankruptcy procedure against B, which is the principal debtor, and according to the written evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and 2, as of September 5, 2007, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy with Suwon District Court 2007Hadan11586, Suwon District Court 2007, and the above court revoked bankruptcy and abolished bankruptcy as of March 27, 2008, and the period for filing an objection against the application for immunity was determined as of May 8, 2008.
However, it is reasonable to interpret that intervention in bankruptcy proceedings under Article 171 of the Civil Act means that an obligee reports his/her claim in accordance with Article 447 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act to join the bankrupt foundation. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s participation in the bankruptcy proceedings against B, such as reporting his/her claim in the bankruptcy proceedings against B. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-claim that the extinctive prescription has been suspended is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant was completed on December 22, 2016 after ten
The defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.
Therefore, it is true.