beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against C and received a favorable judgment ordering the payment of KRW 70,412,00 and the delay damages.
(J) Busan High Court Decision 2005Na6518, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da43095).
C jointly owned the shares of 1/2 and 1/2 of the first and second floors (the subject-matter of the instant transaction) in the F Themalle of Erithic Erithic, Mayang, but the Deceased and D transferred the subject-matter of the instant transaction to the Defendant at KRW 800 million on July 30, 2002.
C. C was killed as heir with G, H, and I. D.
The Plaintiff was determined to seize and collect a claim for the purchase price against the Defendant based on the instant sales contract by C’s heir as a claim for a loan claim.
(No dispute over evidence), entry of each of the subparagraphs A and the purport of the whole pleadings (Evidence) by the Ulsan District Court 2014TTTTTT 3428, Seoul Northern District Court 2014TTTT 5030).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the existence of the seized claim, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for the payment of the collection amount of KRW 197,750,793 based on the collection order of this case and the delay damages.
B. As to the completion of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserts that the said claim for the purchase price had already expired ten years, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2015, which was ten years far after the agreement of this case, and barring any special circumstance, the said claim for the purchase price expired by prescription, barring special circumstances.
The Plaintiff, a creditor of J and D, received a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the purchase price against L or M by the Plaintiff, etc., and was notified to the obligor, and accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant collection claim was suspended due to the above seizure. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the extinctive prescription of the instant collection claim was effective solely on the basis of the evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 11-1 and 2.
In other words, the plaintiff is again the defendant on August 20, 2004 D.