beta
Text
1. The defendant's order against the plaintiff is based on the original copy of the payment order in Seoul Southern District Court 2012Hu45149.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 28, 2012, the first mentor loan limited liability company: (a) acquired the credit card principal of Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tilsung Card”) at KRW 12,273,820 against the Plaintiff; and (b) applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on December 13, 2012 as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012 tea and April 45149 against the Plaintiff on December 27, 2012; and (c) “the Plaintiff” issued a payment order for KRW 46,440,794 against mentor Loans and KRW 12,273,820 from November 30, 2012 to the date of full payment.” The payment order was finalized around that time.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.
The defendant, as the transferee of the claim of this case, was granted an execution clause of succession to the payment order of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the whole purport of the pleading
2. Determination:
A. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's assertion is that since the plaintiff paid only once after the final repayment on June 24, 2002, the benefit of time was lost according to the agreement with Samsung Card and the maturity comes due around June 24, 2002, and the above claim is extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of commercial claim without interruption of prescription before the application for the payment order of this case. Thus, the execution of the payment order of this case should be excluded.
(2) We examine the judgment, and since res judicata is not recognized in the final payment order, the plaintiff can seek the exclusion of the enforcement force of the payment order on the grounds that occurred before the payment order was issued. The claim of this case is based on the commercial activity as stipulated in Article 46 subparagraph 8 of the Commercial Act, since the claim of this case was arising from a contract based on an act of financial service enforcement conducted by Samsung