(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단11442

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단11442

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 1-2, the non-party company B (hereinafter "non-party company") agreed on November 21, 2007 that the non-party company shall perform the debt of this case in full between December 2007 and March 2008, when the non-party company did not perform the debt of this case (hereinafter "agreement") and the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-performance of the debt of this case (hereinafter "the non-party company") and the non-party company's non-performance of the debt of this case. The non-party company's non-party company's non-performance of the debt of this case can be acknowledged.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 10 million UN and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant claim is a claim for construction cost, subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and that the instant lawsuit seeking the performance of the Plaintiff’s claim was filed on December 17, 2015, which was the due date set forth in the said agreement, which was three years from March 3, 2008 and three years after the due date set forth in the said

In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant agreement that the Defendant recognized the non-party company’s debt against the Plaintiff and promised to pay the non-party company directly at the time of non-payment is a quasi-loan agreement under which the non-party company’s unpaid conditions are suspended, and that the extinctive prescription of the claim under the quasi-loan agreement is ten years, and thus, the extinctive prescription

B. Even a wage claim subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 164 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, as to the above wage claim between the Plaintiff, the creditor, and the Defendant, the debtor.

참조조문

-민법 제163조 제3호

-민법 제164조 제3호

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가단126430

-대구지방법원상주지원문경시법원 2020.05.20 2020가단17

-인천지방법원 2020.07.17 2019가단34113

-대전지방법원 2015.11.04 2015가단20732

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.20 2016가합100