(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017나19196

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017나19196

양수금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the credit card payment claim of KRW 9,384,114 from the new card company (hereinafter “new card”); and (b) around that time, notified the Defendant of the assignment of claim.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

2. Where ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit becomes final and conclusive on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, it does not have any benefit in the protection of rights in principle to re-instigation a lawsuit with the same content as that of a final and conclusive judgment. However, if the re-instigation of a lawsuit is for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for which the payment order became final and conclusive, there

I would like to say.

In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the new card applied for a payment order against the Defendant for a credit card payment order under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201j153208, Oct. 15, 2011 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the new card was issued a decision to specify the Defendant’s property (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Kao1028) with the original copy of the instant payment order as the executive title on November 23, 2011. The Plaintiff acquired the credit card payment claim based on the instant payment order from the new card on June 21, 2013, and sought the payment of the acquisition amount by the instant lawsuit.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's re-instigation of the same lawsuit as the payment order finalized by the plaintiff does not have a benefit of protection of rights.

In addition, there are no special circumstances to recognize the benefit of a lawsuit for the extension of prescription, such as the 10-year lapse of the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the payment order of this case at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

I would like to say.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.01.17 2019가단19202

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나35023

-인천지방법원 2017.07.12 2017가단3900

-수원지방법원 2016.08.25 2016가단9632

-부산지방법원 2020.02.04 2019가단328938