양수금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning claims Nos. 1-(2) and 2 in the table of the grounds for the claim shall be dismissed.
2...
1. In the instant lawsuit, ex officio determination on the legality of the part of the claim as to the claims No. 1-(2) and No. 2 (hereinafter “instant claim”) in the table Nos. 1-(2) of the Attached Claim Claim No. 1-(2) among the instant lawsuit, is examined as to the legality of the part of the claim as to the instant lawsuit’s claim No. 1-(2) and 2.
A. A. A claim based on the relevant legal doctrine and final judgment has an interest in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only in cases where it is obvious that the ten-year extinctive prescription period has expired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A successor to a party may perform compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause, and thus, the same is identical.
Meanwhile, given that a final and conclusive payment order and a final and conclusive performance recommendation decision have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, the payment order and a new suit for a claim for which a performance recommendation decision has become final and conclusive is not allowed as there is no benefit of protection
B. According to the entry of 1-(2) claim No. 7-2 of this case, a new card company (former trade name: El branch card company; hereinafter “new card”) which is the transferor of the claim No. 1-(2) of this case.
(2) As the Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Da6155, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order with the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the new card the amount of KRW 8,534,039 and KRW 7,941,75 in 29.9% per annum from April 20, 2005 to the full payment order.” It is recognized that the above payment order was finalized as it was on July 2, 2005 because the Defendant did not raise any objection despite the receipt of the payment order. (2) The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 17, 2016 after the lapse of 10 years from the date on which the payment order became final and conclusive is clear.
Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the claim of this case 1-(2) is already filed for the extension of extinctive prescription period, and there is no benefit of protection of rights.