logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2017가단5054049
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest and damages for delay, as stated in the written claim, unless there are special circumstances, in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the five-year extinctive prescription for the instant claim has expired”

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 13, since auction was conducted on the defendant's real estate, and the distribution schedule was finalized on June 2, 201, and the lawsuit of this case was filed five years thereafter, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.

B. On March 29, 2012, the extinctive prescription was interrupted due to the Defendant’s voluntary reimbursement.

“A” assertion to the effect that “A” is not sufficient to recognize it by itself with the statement of No. 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow