(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.08.26 2016가단5590

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) 창원지방법원 2016.08.26 2016가단5590

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the part of Gap evidence Nos. 2 (excluding the part in the defendant's name), the plaintiff is a creditor who holds loan claims against the dunes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party company"). On April 19, 2005, the non-party company transferred 43,500,000 won to the plaintiff with the claim for the dunesium which the non-party company engaged in the business in the trade name "B", and the defendant paid 3,50,000 won out of the above price and paid 3,50,000 won to the plaintiff on Oct. 12, 2005, the remaining 40 million won to the plaintiff on Feb. 5, 2006 cannot be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 out of the window glass cost that the Plaintiff acquired from the non-party company, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defense that the claim against the non-party company against the non-party company was extinguished by prescription. As seen above, the defendant's obligation owed by the non-party company is the cost of glass and its extinctive prescription is three years (Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act). Since the lawsuit in this case was filed three years after February 5, 2006, which was the date on which the defendant agreed to pay, and it is apparent that the above claim was extinguished by prescription.

I would like to say.

B. As the plaintiff's claim against the non-party company is a loan to the non-party company, the period of extinctive prescription is ten years. However, since this case claims for the claim that the plaintiff acquired from the non-party company, the period of extinctive prescription shall be three years depending on the cause of the claim between the defendant and the non-party company, and since it does not vary depending on the claim relationship between the plaintiff and the non

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제6호

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.06.15 2017가단13146

-광주지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단43191

-부산지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가합17322

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.09.10 2018가단216485

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.04.18 2018가단219453