beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the plaintiff by the defendant against Busan District Court Branch 2013J 2271 dated 28.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on February 18, 200 and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on October 18, 200 with each credit card holder, and delayed payment of each credit card price as listed below while having been issued and used each credit card.
(hereinafter referred to as “C Claim” and “D Credit Card Use Price Claim”. CD
B. On December 20, 2005, C transferred C claims to E Bank and D claims to E Bank on August 11, 2006, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of claims at that time. On December 10, 2010, E Bank transferred the above C claims and D claims (hereinafter “instant claims”) to the Defendant, and issued a notice of the transfer of claims by content-certified mail to the Plaintiff on May 4, 201.
C. After that, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the instant payment order with the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch. On March 13, 2013, the said court issued the payment order to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 35,547,429 KRW 28,929, KRW 675 KRW 6,617,754 and KRW 11,504, KRW 210 KRW 8,901,900 among them, KRW 2,602,310 per annum from March 12, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on March 20, 2013, and was finalized on April 4, 2013.
Meanwhile, among the Defendant’s claims against the Plaintiff, the principal and interest of C Bonds is KRW 28,929,675 in total, KRW 8,901,90 in total, and the principal and interest of D Bonds are KRW 6,617,754 in total, and the principal and interest of D Bonds are KRW 2,602,310 in total.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned that at the time of the application for the payment order of this case, the claim of this case against the plaintiff was already extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of commercial claims.