(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나1911 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나1911

매매대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On November 10, 1999, the judgment of the court below that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,911,000 won and an amount equivalent to 25% per annum from October 14, 1999 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") that "the plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 4,911,000 won and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from October 14, 1999 to the day of full payment") was rendered against the defendant as Jeonju District Court Branch 99Gau713, which became final and conclusive on December 9, 199 can be acknowledged by the statement of evidence No. 1.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the price of the goods determined by the instant judgment.

B. The defendant's claim for the price of goods against the defendant, which is the cause of the judgment of this case, has expired after the ten-year statute of limitations expired, and the judgment of this case also expired after the ten-year period has passed since the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, as seen earlier, the facts that the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on December 9, 199 are as follows. The plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant was filed on January 25, 2012, which is 10 years from the date the lawsuit of this case was filed. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant was already extinguished before the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's above assertion has merit.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant paid KRW 1,850,000, which was part of the amount ordered by the defendant to pay to the plaintiff in the judgment of this case before the expiration of the statute of limitations or after the expiration of the statute of limitations, this constitutes waiver of the benefits of prescription after the interruption of prescription or the completion of the statute

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid KRW 1,850,000 to the Plaintiff.

C. Sub-decisions.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나3040

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.07.24 2020가단92 (1)

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.10 2016가단81945

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.07 2016나4816

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.12.20 2016가단5515