대여금 등
1. As to Defendant A Co., Ltd., and KRW 54,429,480 among the Plaintiff, Defendant A Co., Ltd., and KRW 403,68,078, and KRW 154,480 from March 31, 1998.
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
(However, "creditor" is changed to "Plaintiff", and "debtor" is changed to "Defendant"). 2.
A. Judgment by public notice of judgment on Defendant A corporation (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
B. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of evidence No. 1 as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant C, the court below held that the plaintiff applied for a payment order, such as loans, etc. from Seoul District Court 2003 tea17105 and the original copy of the payment order was confirmed on May 17, 2003 after the plaintiff served on the defendant on May 2, 2003. The facts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the claim under the above payment order on August 28, 2013, which was ten years after the above payment order became final and conclusive.
According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the above payment order has already been completed at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and it is not possible to re-extinctive prescription for a claim extinguished upon the completion of extinctive prescription. Accordingly, there is no benefit of protection
(2) On April 12, 2013, prior to the completion of extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations was interrupted, since the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant demanding the performance of an obligation on April 12, 2013, and the instant lawsuit was filed before six months elapse from the notice.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that Gap evidence No. 4 (the notice of scheduled procedure request) was merely an internal document of the plaintiff company and sent it to the defendant only, and there is no other evidence to prove that it was sent to the defendant. Thus, the above assertion is without merit without examining further.
(3) The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting the rights.
3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A Co., Ltd. is reasonable.