(영문) 창원지방법원창원남부시법원 2016.02.17 2015가단70

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원창원남부시법원 2016.02.17 2015가단70

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2000, the Plaintiff purchased sulfur X-ray content from the Defendant at a price of KRW 360,000,000, and paid the price in 36,000 each month from January 20, 201.

B. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the above amount in full, on October 21, 2005, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on October 26, 2005 with the Changwon District Court 2005 tea 2103, Jinhae District Court 2005, and on October 26, 2005, issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 260,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 9, 2005 to the date of full payment.” The instant payment order was finalized on December 23, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods is subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years. The application for the instant payment order was made after the extinctive prescription has already expired. The instant payment order is based on the claim already extinguished, and thus, is rejected.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant has partially repaid the price of goods from April 13, 2001 to January 30, 2003. Thus, the defendant's claim for the price of goods was suspended by the extinctive prescription on January 30, 2003.

C. The fact that the final due date for the Defendant’s claim for the payment of goods was October 20, 2001, and the claim for the payment order of this case was made on October 21, 2005, which was three years after the expiration of the above period.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff partially repaid the amount of goods to the Defendant on January 30, 2003, which was before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and thus, the extinctive prescription was interrupted. Since the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order before the lapse of three years from January 30, 203, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.25 2015나630

-인천지방법원 부천지원 김포시법원 2018.06.27 2018가단2039

-서울남부지방법원 2014.12.18 2014나53856

-대전지방법원 서산지원 태안군법원 2018.11.13 2018가단22

-창원지방법원 2015.09.25 2015가단6954