beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.01.25 2016가단215709

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 54,629,389 won to the plaintiff and 6,80,000 won among them to the day of full payment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19520, Jul. 29, 2006>

Reasons

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, Samsung Capital Co., Ltd., Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., EL Card Co., Ltd. and the defendant had 54,629,389 won in total of credit card loans and credit card payments against the defendant. The above company transferred each of the above claims against the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant, and on October 25, 2006, "the defendant was 29% in total with respect to 54,629,389 won in amount and 6,80,000 won in amount from July 29, 2006 to the day of full payment, 20,193,603 won in each of the above claims, the judgment below became final and conclusive that "the defendant was 14% in total calculated with 25% in interest per annum from July 29, 2006 to the day of full payment."

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 54,629,389 won and 6,800,000 won per annum from July 29, 2006 to the date of full payment, 29% per annum, 20,193,603 won per annum from July 29, 2006 to the date of full payment.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff's claim for the amount of takeover has expired by prescription, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

On the other hand, the facts that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and rendered a favorable judgment from the Daegu District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 14, 2006, are as examined above. The time limit of extinctive prescription of the claim based on the final and conclusive judgment is ten years, and it is evident that the lawsuit in this case was filed on September 22, 2016, which was ten years before the date on which the above judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

In the end, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is decided as per Disposition.