beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff on the payment order 6,497.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 2003, LG Investment Securities Co., Ltd. took over the credit card (loan) claim against the Plaintiff of Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Han Bank Claim”) and credit card (loan) claim against the Plaintiff of LG Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LG card claim”), respectively, and the Defendant took over the above credit from LG Investment Securities Co., Ltd. on the same day.
B. On May 9, 2007, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of each of the above claims. On May 16, 2007, the Defendant received the payment order to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 9,404,793 won per annum from October 25, 2003 to the date on which the original copy of the payment order was served, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to the date on which the original copy of the payment order was served, and damages for payment and expenses for demand procedure calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.”
The original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 11, 2007, and was finalized on June 26, 2007.
【Unsatisfyal grounds for recognition】Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In light of the determination as to the part of the claim of Han Bank, the plaintiff asserted that Han Bank claim of the defendant acquired constitutes commercial claim and that the prescription period of five years has already expired before the application for the payment order of this case, the defendant does not dispute this. The above claim was extinguished by prescription prior to May 9, 2007, which is the date of application for the payment order of this case. Thus, the part of the claim of Han Bank among the payment order of this case should be excluded.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no notification of the assignment of claims 1 regarding the portion of LG card claims is appropriate for the Defendant’s transfer of claims with respect to the LG card claims that the Defendant acquired.