beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim filed by Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. and lot cards Co., Ltd.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As of May 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a credit card from the financial institutions as indicated below, and did not pay the credit card amount equivalent to each of the amounts indicated below as of May 31, 2013.
Serial No. 22,48,020 on March 22, 2005, transfer 3 lot cards (ju) to 2 Hyundai Card No. 4,191,482 on September 28, 200, the balance of the use price of a financial institution 1 EL branch card (ju) on the date of the contract of the financial institution, 191,482 on September 28, 200, 200, 7,489,352
B. As to the above claim No. 2, on May 16, 2012, the Hyundai Card Co., Ltd. transferred the claim to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Capital”) and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at that time.
C. On May 31, 2013, a new card company (hereinafter “new card”), Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., and lot cards Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “slot cards”) transferred each credit card use-price claim to the Plaintiff. On June 23, 2014, a new card company notified the Defendant of the transfer of the credit card assignment.
Serial 4,191,4823,71,189,97,97,602,610 2,448,020 1,448,020 1,472,862,862,862, total 420,8624,352,3526,444,690 13,934,042,042
D. As of December 29, 2016, the balance of principal and overdue interest of each credit card use-price claim as of December 29, 2016 are as listed below:
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit
A. Since a judgment in favor of a person who won the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, where a party who won the final and conclusive judgment files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of the former suit, the subsequent suit is deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. However, on an exceptional basis, the ten-year extinctive prescription period of a claim based