logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단5153895
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Seoul Central District Court 2005da134712 claim against the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 34,326,309 and KRW 13,222,679 from June 8, 2005 to the delivery date of the complaint, 18% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date,” and the above decision was finalized on July 16, 2005.

B. Puws Deposit transferred to the Defendant on April 16, 2009 the obligation under the above decision on performance recommendation, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer on May 12, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that since the extinctive prescription has expired from 10 years from July 16, 2005, which was the date when the said performance recommendation became final and conclusive, compulsory execution based on the above decision of performance recommendation should be rejected.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1-4, the defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff on January 4, 2010 and February 3, 2010, based on the decision of performance recommendation of the instant case ( Daejeon District Court 2010TTT 13 and Daejeon District Court 2010TT 1454). The above claims seizure and collection order of each of the above claims were quoted, and each of the above claims seizure and collection order can be acknowledged to have been served on the plaintiff on January 12, 2010 and March 4, 2010, and thus, the statute of limitations was interrupted at that time, and it is apparent that the extinctive prescription has not yet been completed at the time of the closing of the instant argument.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.

arrow