(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.06.07 2015가단39262

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.06.07 2015가단39262

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 200, after filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of goods (Seoul District Court 99Da3814, Daejeon District Court 99DaDa173814) and being sentenced to the judgment that the Plaintiff would pay to the Treatment Board the amount of KRW 15,612,912 and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from July 28, 199 to the date of complete payment (hereinafter “instant judgment of execution”). The judgment of execution of this case became final and conclusive on July 12, 200.

B. On January 15, 2015, the Defendant was granted succession execution clause with respect to the instant judgment of execution, and based on which the Defendant received the Daejeon District Court’s order of seizure and collection as to the deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s Dong Daejeon Agricultural Cooperative and Han Bank on April 17, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has expired ten years after the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive. 2) The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted as is, since the provisional seizure of the claim filed by the treatment judgment was not revoked after the execution of provisional seizure of the claim filed by the treatment judgment

B. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement 1) 1-A and 1-2, the judgment of provisional seizure against claims against the plaintiff's treatment-based based on Daejeon District Court 98Kadan33911 on November 2, 1998 (the content of the claim: damages due to the goods sold on June 24, 1995, claim amount: 15,612,912) was issued, and the provisional seizure order of provisional seizure as to claims against the plaintiff's treatment-based based on the above provisional seizure continues to be valid until now after the execution preservation of provisional seizure remains effective.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.05.26 2020가단140

-대전지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단27955

-대전지방법원논산지원 2016.11.17 2016가단1888

-수원지방법원 2016.02.16 2015나17682

-수원지방법원 2018.10.30 2018가단16788