beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order with executory power in Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Hu6050 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 23, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Western District Court for a payment order to the Plaintiff (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014 tea6050, Sept. 26, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a payment order to the Defendant to the effect that KRW 10,219,960 and KRW 2,348,041, whichever is 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of complete payment, and that the payment order was finalized on October 17, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). B.
Based on the instant payment order, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposited claim by Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TTTT18877, and applied for the seizure of corporeal movables against the Plaintiff’s movable property by the same court 2015No3473.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment of the Plaintiff appears to fall under a loan claim of a financial institution with the extinctive prescription of five years. According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 2,00,000 from the Sung Savings Bank from around December 5, 2001, and the said debt amount reaches KRW 2,348,041, interest, 7,871,919 as of September 20, 201,” at the time of applying for the instant payment order.
In addition, the above loan commencement period and the amount of principal and interest, etc., the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was directly served with the original of the instant payment order, seizure and collection order, as seen below, and in addition, some obligations do not appear before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period or the suspension of the extinctive prescription period, it is evident that the instant payment order filed on September 2014 was filed after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s debt against the Sung Savings Bank.
Therefore, the payment of the debt, the extinctive prescription is completed.