청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 21, 2004, D Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground that it received the credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff from E on the ground that it was acquired by transfer of credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff. The above court issued the payment order on November 12, 2007, and the payment order was finalized on December 7, 2007.
B. On June 15, 2011, the Defendant filed an application with D Co., Ltd. for a payment order seeking damages for delay of KRW 22,435,300, from Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2012 teas. 33701 to 62,239,150 among them, and damages for delay of KRW 22,435,30 among them. The said court issued a payment order on May 25, 201, and the payment order became final and conclusive on June 16, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment that the claim against E, a corporation, etc. occurred in around 2002, and the Defendant had already set the five-year extinctive prescription period at the time of filing an application for a payment order with the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012j33701. Thus, the enforcement against the above payment order should be denied.
Then, since D Co., Ltd., which received credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff of E, applied for a payment order as Seoul Central District Court 2007 tea81031 and the payment order became final and conclusive on December 7, 2007, the extinctive prescription period for the above claim is ten years thereafter, and since the Defendant, who received the above claim from D Co., Ltd, applied for a payment order as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2012 tea3701 and the payment order became final and conclusive on June 16, 2012, the extinctive prescription for the claim based on the payment order as Seoul East East District Court 2012 tea3701, Seoul Central District Court 201, which was not yet expired.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.