beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers):
On May 14, 2001, Defendant A loaned KRW 5 million from Samsung Capital Co., Ltd. (the trade name after the merger: Samsung Card Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “Tsung Capital”) under the terms of loan loans in installments for 24 months and 24 months, and received additional card loan around that time, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loan obligations of Defendant A at the time of the above loan.
B. On or after March 2002, Defendant A delayed repayment of the principal and interest of each of the above loans [the total amount of KRW 9,802,760 (the card loan principal of KRW 4,547,790 (the card loan principal of KRW 5,254,970)], and Samsung Capital obtained registration of provisional seizure against automobile from the Gwangju District Court on June 17, 2003 and July 16, 2003 with the claim for each of the above loans as the claim for provisional seizure against automobile from the Gwangju District Court (the Gwangju District Court Decision 2003Kadan23617, the same Court Decision 2003Kadan28827).
C. On May 19, 2006, the registration of the provisional seizure of the above vehicle in the name of Samsung Capital Capital, was awarded to a third party by the public sale by the head of the North Korean Office of Gwangju Metropolitan City on May 19, 2006, and the said vehicle owned by the defendant was cancelled on May 22, 2006.
Samsung Capital transferred each of the above loans to Solomon Mutual Savings Bank on May 3, 2006, and the above savings bank again transferred each of the above loans to the Plaintiff on April 26, 2011, and notified the Defendant A of the transfer of each of the above loans.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant lawsuit seeking payment of the acquisition amount equivalent to each of the above loans by the instant lawsuit, the Defendants raised a defense of extinctive prescription, this case’s respective loans are subject to the five-year commercial prescription with commercial claims, and the interruption of prescription by provisional attachment is special.