양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 128,567,373 won and 38,207,29 won among them to the day of complete payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the court rendered a judgment on February 2, 2010 that "the defendant shall pay to the defendant the amount of 68,300,803 won and 38,207,299 won among them and 38,299 won with interest of 17% per annum from July 7, 2009 to the day of full payment," and the above judgment is acknowledged that Eul transferred the above claims against the defendant to the defendant, and then notified the defendant."
According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition that the plaintiff seeks within the scope of the judgment amount to the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit again for the extension of prescription.
2. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above claim acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.
However, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2009Da38552 was finalized on February 25, 2010 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on January 29, 2020, before ten years elapse thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired was not completed.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.