logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가단5233326
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant entered into a credit card return agreement with Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Tsung Card") on or around January 200, and received a credit card from Samsung Card. ② Samsung Card transferred the credit card payment claim 21,701,655 won to the defendant on July 13, 2005 (based on principal principal) to Han Il-Ick Investment Co., Ltd. ③ on July 29, 2005; ③ on July 29, 2005, Han-Ick Investment transferred the credit payment claim to Han-Ickn Investment Limited Co., Ltd.; on July 30, 201, the defendant acquired the above credit payment claim through Han-Ick Investment Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., limited liability company, Han-Ick Partners Loan, and the plaintiff's credit payment claim by the plaintiff on July 30, 2016>

The defendant's defense against the plaintiff's claim for the transferee is extinguished by prescription.

The credit card payment claim of Samsung Card against the Defendant was due and payable on July 13, 2005 when Samsung Card transferred its claim to Han Il-man Inc.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 8, 2016, which was apparent from the 10th anniversary thereof.

The plaintiff's claim for the amount of takeover was extinguished upon expiration of prescription.

The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

In this regard, the plaintiff re-appealed to the purport that the defendant approved the debt by depositing money in three times.

Although it is possible to approve an obligation as a ground for the waiver of the extinctive prescription benefit in an implied manner because there is no restriction on the method of indication, at least it is established by expressing the intent to recognize the existence of an obligation owed by the obligor against the obligee, and the interpretation of whether there is an expression of intent to that effect is indicated.

arrow