beta
Text
1. Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea534974 between the limited liability company C (D previously changed) and the defendant
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 15, 2017, a limited liability company C (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) has received an order to pay a transfer money against the defendant, and the defendant received an order to pay the non-party company 7,357,910 won per annum from November 29, 2006 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order, and 46.9% per annum from the next day to the full payment date, and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date. The above payment order was served on the defendant on March 6, 2017 and became final and conclusive on March 21, 2017.
B. The above claim against the Defendant of the non-party company was transferred to E Co., Ltd. on August 30, 2019, and on November 22, 2019, in sequence to the Plaintiff, but the notice of transfer was not served.
C. On January 16, 2020, the Plaintiff received a successive delegation from the transferor, and the instant complaint accompanied by the notice of assignment of claims was served on the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, since the plaintiff is the successor to the bond that was acquired based on the payment order of this case, the Seoul Central District Court shall grant the execution clause to the plaintiff for compulsory execution against the defendant.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the obligation based on the payment order of this case was extinguished by prescription as it was borrowed in 2006.
In a lawsuit for grant of execution clause, the subject of examination is limited to the requirements for grant of execution clause, including the fulfillment of conditions and the fact of succession. Therefore, it is not permissible for an obligor to assert the grounds for objection in a lawsuit for objection under Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93087, Apr. 13, 2012). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasoning.