beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the original copy of the Seoul Central District Court 2014Hu1043.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant concluded a credit transaction agreement with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Capital”) and delayed payment of the principal and interest during the use of the loan. Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. on May 31, 2011, and DNA Capital Co., Ltd. on March 16, 2012, DNA Capital Co., Ltd. transferred each of the above claims to the Defendant and notified the transfer thereof. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment of the principal and interest at the rate of 2,324,61 won and 8,411,09,000 won including interest until March 16, 2012 and 10,735,709 won including interest, and damages for delay from March 29, 2012 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment”).
B. On August 20, 2014, the instant payment order became final and conclusive after being served on the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 6-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In full view of the reasoning of the argument in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the claim against the plaintiff of Hyundai Capital, 3 million won of loans, May 25, 2001, and June 25, 2000 to May 25, 2001, was a claim for installment payments made in 12 times each month from June 25, 2000 to May 25, 2001. The defendant's application for the payment order of this case was filed on May 9, 2014, which was five years after the expiration of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period from the above maturity date. Thus, even if the plaintiff was liable for installment payments to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., even if the plaintiff had been liable for the installment payments, the extinctive prescription has expired before the application for the payment order of this case.
Therefore, the execution order of this case should be excluded.
3. The defendant's assertion that the defendant raised any objection against the plaintiff's service of the payment order of this case.