beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a situation in which the Plaintiff used a credit card issued by the new card (ELC) from December 2, 2000 to August 2003, and paid KRW 573,624 on August 23, 200 as a credit card price, and then did not pay the credit card price up to the day.
However, on January 21, 2015, the defendant, who received credit card payment from the new card, received the provisional attachment order from the Chuncheon District Court 2015Kadan60 on January 21, 2015, and received the Plaintiff's credit card payment.
However, before the plaintiff's credit card debt against the defendant was issued the provisional seizure order, five years have already passed since the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Therefore, it is sought to confirm that there is no liability for credit card payment.
2. Determination
A. In light of the overall purport of pleadings in the statements in subparagraphs B through 4 above, the Plaintiff used a credit card issued by El Card Co., Ltd. from around 1999 and did not pay KRW 13,557,000 for the use thereof. EL Card Co., Ltd. applied for payment order on December 31, 2004 to the Seoul Central District Court 2004Gu71559 and applied for payment order on the use of the credit card, and the payment order became final and conclusive on May 12, 2010. EL Card Co., Ltd. was merged with the new card Co., Ltd. and the new card Co., Ltd received the execution clause under the above payment order on May 12, 2010 and the Defendant received the credit card usage claim from the new card Co., Ltd., received the credit card use claim from the new card Co., Ltd. and received the inheritance execution clause by succession on November 28, 2014.
B. According to the above facts, the defendant's credit card use fee claim against the plaintiff was suspended by the extinctive prescription according to the above payment order and the seizure and collection order, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is the defendant.