(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.11 2016가단108313

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.11 2016가단108313

대여금

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 December 6, 2005, C received two payment orders against the Defendant, “The Defendant shall pay C the amount equivalent to KRW 53,375,00 and 20% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the day of full payment, and the expenses for demand procedure (hereinafter “first payment order”).” On April 14, 2006, C received payment orders with the content that “The Defendant shall pay C the amount equivalent to KRW 73,209,533 and the amount equivalent to KRW 20% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the day of full payment,” and “The Defendant shall pay C the amount equivalent to KRW 73,209,533 and the amount equivalent to KRW 20% per annum from the day after the payment was served to the day of full payment.”

The first payment order was served on the defendant on December 10, 2005 and finalized on December 25, 2005, and the second payment order was served on the defendant on April 18, 2006 and finalized on May 3, 2006.

The grounds for application for each payment order shall be as shown in the attached Form.

B. Around March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff, a person operating a lending company, received a claim against the Defendant under each of the above payment orders from C, and notified the Defendant of the transfer on behalf of C around March 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription by obtaining a judgment to the same effect as the previous payment order, since the defendant did not perform his/her obligation under each of the above payment orders, and the expiration of the extinctive prescription period is imminent.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's obligation against C does not exist and that the obligation based on the payment order has ceased to exist with the lapse of 10 years of extinctive prescription.

3. Determination

(a)The order of payment, the validity of which has become final and conclusive, shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act), and

참조조문

-민사소송법 제474조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.10.02 2013가합8877

-서울남부지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단231846

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.09.11 2018가단3252

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.09 2015가단22498

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.06.19 2019가단12819