beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans to the Plaintiff on February 8, 2018 at the Daegu District Court, Kimcheon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Court 2018 tea135.
Reasons
1. On February 7, 2018, the Defendant filed a request for payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant had a claim for a loan of KRW 5,000,000 against the Plaintiff ( February 15, 2008, the date of lease) as the ground of the claim that the Defendant had a claim for the loan of KRW 5,00,000 against the Plaintiff. The payment order issued on February 8, 2018 by the court was served on the Plaintiff on the 20th of the same month and the next month.
7. A final and conclusive determination.
2. The plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on February 15, 2003 without fixing the due date. However, the plaintiff asserts that the above loan claims should not be allowed compulsory execution based on the above payment order since the period of the above five or ten years has expired at the time when the defendant applied for the above payment order, and since the period of the statute of limitations has expired at the time when the defendant applied for the above payment order, compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be allowed. The defendant lent KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on January 1, 2005, while the plaintiff urged the payment of the above amount of KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on his own hand around 208, the period of application for the certificate of KRW 3 (Application for Lease) was revised to 2008
3. We examine the case where: (a) each entry of evidence Nos. 5-1 (E fact certificate) and evidence Nos. 6-1 (F fact certificate) and witness E, which correspond to the defendant's assertion that "the plaintiff revised the year of application Nos. 3 (the year of application for rent) to 2008 on his own pen from Gu, American, Si, 2008; and (b) the testimony of the witness E, which correspond to the defendant's assertion, are hard to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion only by the entries of evidence Nos. 4 (Recording).
4. If so, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff stated in the order of payment stated in the order became extinct due to the completion of prescription.
Since compulsory execution based on the above payment order is not allowed.