beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal on this part is as follows.
In other words, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations has expired since the time of the instant lawsuit on behalf of the debtor, E, and that E was aware of this fact before he/she renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription on January 25, 2017, and thus, E’s declaration of waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription is null and void.
Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff asserted extinctive prescription in its own position. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The judgment below
According to the reasoning and the record, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has expired in the cause of the claim, on behalf of the debtor E, and the Defendant did not assert that the period of extinctive prescription has expired in lieu of the debtor, and on March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted in the preparatory document stating, “The Plaintiff is a general creditor of the Plaintiff, who is merely a person holding a provisional attachment against E, and it is only possible for the Plaintiff to exercise the right of subrogation, in order to claim the completion of the extinctive prescription.” On the fourth day of the first instance trial on March 7, 2017, the general creditor may assert the extinctive prescription by subrogation of the debtor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her claim.”
In light of these facts, it is clear that the Plaintiff asserted the completion of the extinctive prescription in subrogation of E, a debtor, only after the time when March 7, 2017 was made. Thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal premised on the claim for the completion of the extinctive prescription of the secured obligation in subrogation of E, the debtor, from the
2. Ground of appeal.