양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The fact that the Defendant entered into an agreement with a financial institution as listed below and the said financial institution was liable for credit card price obligations or loan obligations, each of the above financial institutions transferred its claims to the Plaintiff on or around May 13, 2005, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on June 16, 2005. As of July 1, 2015, the principal and interest of each of the above claims as of July 1, 2015 are recognized by each of the following statements, or are either under dispute between the parties or under dispute between Party A1 and 3 (including the serial number):
The Defendant shall pay 10,543,643,443 won, 9,565,979 won, 14,229,422 won, 28 December 28, 2001, 201, 10,5443,325 won, 20,325 won, 10,543,325 won, 20,326 won, 31,443,651 won, 13,548,530, 2964, 168, 481, 206, 164, 168, 468, 208, 164, 206, 31, 31,43,651 won, 14, 203, 530,530, 530, 439, 4616, 4196, 468, 1964,
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant asserts that the above-mentioned claim was extinguished upon expiration of the extinctive prescription.
However, even though the maturity date of each of the above claims that the Plaintiff acquired was not clear, it is reasonable to regard that the maturity date has arrived at least in May 13, 2005, which is the date of assignment of claims, and each of the above claims is subject to a five-year commercial extinctive prescription. It is obvious that the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 17, 2015, which is five years after the maturity date of each of the above claims.
Therefore, since the above-mentioned claim has expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense is justified.
B. On March 5, 2004, the plaintiff 1's second defense against the defendant's credit card payment claim.