logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2016.03.09 2015가단12024
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's red support of the Daejeon District Court to the plaintiff was based on the payment order of 98 tea1599 dated January 12, 199.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff, on January 6, 1998, was supplied with old machinery, etc. by the defendant, a merchant, and did not pay the price for the above goods.

On January 12, 1999, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the goods price and damages for delay thereof by Hongsung Branch of Daejeon District Court 98 tea1599, and received the payment order citing it from the above court (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The above payment order was finalized on January 29, 199.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 445 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990; Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002; Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002; Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002; Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002) does not recognize the same effect as the final judgment.

However, Article 3 of the Addenda to the current Civil Procedure Act provides that "this Act shall also apply to the matters arising prior to the enforcement of this Act: Provided, That this Act shall not affect the validity of the previous provisions." Thus, Article 165 (2) of the Civil Act does not apply to the payment order finalized at the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Procedure Act, since it is not recognized as having

Therefore, even if an order for payment is finalized with respect to a claim falling under short-term extinctive prescription at the time of enforcement of the former Civil Procedure Act, the period of extinctive prescription does not extend to ten years from that time, and the original period of extinctive prescription of the claim is likewise applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51908, Nov. 27, 2008).

Since the Defendant’s claim for sales proceeds, such as old machinery, against the Plaintiff constitutes “price for the goods sold by the merchant,” the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act is three years.

arrow