beta
Text
1. The defendant's case against the plaintiff of Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana129578 dated March 10, 2009.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 18, 2001, a good mutual savings bank (before the change: hereinafter “Good Credit Depository”) concluded a comprehensive passbook loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the Plaintiff on December 3, 2006, which stipulates that the interest rate and compensation rate for delay shall be according to the change rate determined by the bank of the non-party (hereinafter “the instant loan”).
B. On March 16, 2007, the non-party bank transferred the loan claims against the plaintiff to the defendant according to the decision of the Financial Supervisory Commission on the transfer of the contract, and announced this time.
C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2009 against the Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana1294578. The decision of performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff on May 30, 2009 and became final and conclusive on June 16, 2009.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion began to delay interest on the instant loan from December 2002, and the Plaintiff discontinued “B” operated on July 30, 2003.
Pursuant to Article 7 (1) 5 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions applicable to the instant case (hereinafter “instant Terms and Conditions”), the Plaintiff lost the benefit of time and was liable to repay the entire amount of the instant loan due to the Plaintiff’s loss of payment of the loan, and at the same time five years have passed from that time, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim was completed even after July 30, 2008 (the last three pages of the preparatory documents of March 13, 2017, “ August 30, 2008” in the last three pages of the preparatory documents of March 13, 2017).
The decision on the execution recommendation of this case is based on the claim for which the extinctive prescription has expired as above, so compulsory execution based thereon shall not be permitted.
3. In full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is entitled to the foregoing evidence.