beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
(a) The facts below the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence 1, together with the whole purport of the pleadings;
(1) The non-party C has a claim amounting to D with 182,00,000 won and 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2003 to the day of complete payment, based on the judgment of the Seoul District Court's decision on the loans, etc. 200,4116, etc.
(2) The non-party D held against the defendant 99,00,000 won and the amount equivalent to 25,000 per annum from June 25, 1996 to May 12, 1997 by the decision on the payment of the purchase-price amount of 99,00,000 based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 97Gahap32043 (hereinafter “the claim of this case”). The non-party D had a claim with the amount equivalent to 99,00,000 won per annum from June 25, 1996
The above judgment was finalized on August 24, 1997.
(3) On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff received from C the above judgment amount claim against C.
After that, the Plaintiff received an execution clause to be succeeded based on the above assignment of claims and received a collection order on August 19, 2016 with respect to the instant claim that D, the debtor of which, as the Incheon District Court 2016TTT18123, reaches KRW 579,33,304, which was held against the Defendant, the third debtor. The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on August 19, 2016. The above seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on September 8, 2016.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as the collection obligee, is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 110,000,000 and damages for delay as claimed by the plaintiff as part of the claim, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. Defendant’s defense (1) The claim of this case became final and conclusive around August 1997, and the extinctive prescription was completed ten years after August 2007.
(2) D had the instant claim against the Defendant through a written waiver of claim on March 24, 2005.