Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The basic facts presented by the court concerning this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The statute of limitations interrupted due to a judicial claim for judgment on the running of the statute of limitations runs anew from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive. As such, the statute of limitations run from June 27, 2001 when the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive.
The Plaintiff’s filing date of the instant suit is apparent on June 8, 2016. Since it is apparent that it was ten years after June 27, 2001, which was the date on which the decision on performance recommendation of the instant case became final and conclusive, the statute of limitations expired.
I would like to say.
3. Determination as to the interruption of prescription
A. The Defendant’s primary debtor B’s motion to issue a certificate of debt to the Defendant to file a petition for bankruptcy and exemption constitutes a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription, and the interruption of prescription extends to the Plaintiff.
B. Facts of finding the above assertion 1
A. B was issued on February 22, 2010 by requesting the Defendant to issue the following certificates of debt for bankruptcy and application for immunity:
B B B B
B. B, on March 24, 2010, filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2010Hadan878, 2010Ma878, and indicated the Defendant as a bankruptcy creditor. On November 5, 2010, the said court rendered a ruling of bankruptcy and concurrent closure with respect to B on November 5, 2010, and a ruling of immunity on November 5, 2010.
[Reasons for recognition] No. 1-2, No. 2-2, and No. 2-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 1-5, and the approval of an obligation which constitutes the ground for interruption of extinctive prescription in the whole purport of pleading 2-related legal principles is a notification of the so-called concept established by indicating that the obligor who is the party who is the party who is receiving the prescription benefit knows the other party's right or obligation to the other party to be lost due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, which is different from