(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단43025

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단43025

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the plaintiff's evidence No. 1, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court 2005da50189, Aug. 9, 2005, which stated that "the defendant shall pay 10,000,000 won jointly and severally with C and interest rate of 20% per annum from June 16, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment can be acknowledged as the fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2005.

According to the above facts, 10 years have passed since the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff's obligation based on the above judgment seems to have expired on September 8, 2015.

2. The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription was interrupted since the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the same cause as the above judgment before the extinctive prescription expires for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on August 20, 2015, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, by the Seoul Northern District Court 2015da53088 for the interruption of extinctive prescription on the grounds of the same content as the above final judgment.

According to the above facts, since the defendant appears to have filed a judicial claim against the plaintiff prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the plaintiff's obligation based on the above final judgment shall be deemed to have been interrupted.

Ultimately, since the extinctive prescription is interrupted by the defendant's judicial claim, the above obligation against the defendant cannot be deemed to have been completed.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.05.15 2019가단72652

-광주지방법원장성군법원 2016.08.19 2016가단17

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.23 2020가단9501

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.22 2019가단5226350

-전주지방법원 2018.08.23 2018가단2563