beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff based on the payment order dated May 4, 2016, the Suwon District Court 2016 tea 4831.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, with the trade name of “B”, leased KRW 8,00,00,00 to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2010, KRW 120,000 per annum for 87 days due, and interest, KRW 120,00 per annum. The Defendant asserted that he/she received the above loan claim from “C” on December 28, 2014, and filed an application for a payment order with the Suwon District Court No. 2016 tea4831 on April 6, 2016, against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2016, the said court did not acknowledge the Defendant’s payment order from July 20, 201 to May 11, 2016 or from the next day of the payment order to the date of complete payment (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s payment order”) with the entire payment order No. 15% of the amount of KRW 16,56,000,000 per annum.”
2. According to the above facts of determination, the above loan claims that the Defendant acquired was a commercial bond and the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on April 6, 2016 after five years from July 20, 2010, when the payment period was due. As such, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claims had already expired at the time of the application for the instant payment order.
In regard to this, the defendant renounced the benefit of prescription and approved the obligation because the plaintiff did not raise an objection even after receiving the payment order of this case, and asserts that the plaintiff's assertion for the completion of prescription again after the payment order became final and conclusive constitutes abuse of rights by itself.
However, just because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant payment order, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff renounced the benefit of prescription and approved the obligation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the completion of prescription cannot be seen as an abuse of rights.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is rejected.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.