logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원용인시법원 2020.09.04 2020가단26
청구이의
Text

The defendant's order of payment for the bill payment is based on the order of payment for the bill payment case of Suwon District Court 2001j 1046.

Reasons

The recognition C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) applied for a payment order on May 18, 2001 against the Plaintiff at the Suwon District Court, 2001 tea1046.

On the same day, the above court ordered C to pay "the plaintiff shall pay 2,892,829 won to C with 6% per annum from January 11, 1998 to the service date of payment order, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The payment order was finalized on June 8, 2001.

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) acquired the above promissory note gold claims from C, and then applied for grant of succession execution clause to this court, and the succeeding execution clause was delivered to the Plaintiff on March 4, 2009.

After acquiring the above promissory note gold claims from D, the Defendant applied for grant of succession execution clause to this court, and the succeeded execution clause was delivered to the Plaintiff on January 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties concerned as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the payment order of this case was finalized before the expiration of Article 474 of the former Civil Procedure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002), which recognizes the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment on the payment order, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim of the above

Since the period of extinctive prescription has expired from June 8, 2001, the payment order for the above promissory note was finalized, the extinctive prescription has expired.

The extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s assertion C was interrupted by provisional seizure of real estate against the Plaintiff.

D. The extinctive prescription was interrupted since the service of the succeeding execution clause to the plaintiff by the defendant's application for the grant of the succeeding execution clause and the defendant's seizure and collection order against the plaintiff within six months thereafter.

Judgment

The period of extinctive prescription has become final.

arrow