beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,956,315 and KRW 19,360,317 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 17% per annum from June 18, 2014 to February 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence No. 2-5 (Decision No. 2005DaDa12762 delivered by the Jeonju District Court), No. 6 and No. 4-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion on this part can be acknowledged as facts.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have entered into a loan contract, and that the former husband B was entered into a loan contract using the name of the defendant without permission.
However, the above assertion is in conflict with the res judicata effect of the judgment that became final and conclusive (No. 2-5 of the evidence No. 2, the former movable property credit union filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the above loan, and obtained a favorable judgment on June 14, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2005). Thus, it is not acceptable.
The defendant defenses that the above loan claims have expired by prescription.
However, on June 17, 2014, before the expiration of 10 years, the extinctive prescription period, which is the extinctive prescription period of the judgment bond, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan credit (which became final and conclusive) by transfer, was interrupted by filing the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
B. In full view of the evidence Nos. 3-3 (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2004DaDa34758), 6, 4-4-4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff's assertion on this part can be acknowledged as facts.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have entered into a loan contract, and that the former husband B was entered into a loan contract using the name of the defendant without permission.
However, the above assertion is based on the evidence No. 3-3 of the judgment No. 3-3 of the judgment No. 3 of the court below, and the Jeon Dong-dong Credit Union, which filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the above loan No. 3-3 of the judgment No. 3 of the court below, and