logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.05.20 2015가단3183
청구이의 소
Text

1. Loans extended by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at Busan District Court Branch on September 15, 2014.

Reasons

1. On December 22, 2001, the Yeongdeungpo Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. lent KRW 1,126,364 to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2001. The Plaintiff lost the benefit of the period for the above loan on December 22, 2002. The Defendant’s acquisition of the above loan claim from the above savings bank on December 22, 2002 does not conflict between the parties, and the above loan claim is extinguished by the lapse of the five years from the date on which the above loan claim was lost due to commercial activity. The Defendant’s application for payment order on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff is clearly stated in the record that there was a lapse of five years from the date on which the above claim was made. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be denied because the Defendant’s above loan claim against the Plaintiff expired by the statute of limitations.

2. The judgment on the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim was groundless because the plaintiff was virtually unable to recover the defendant's claim due to the cancellation of the defendant's resident registration upon the date of repayment of the above loan's claim, and thereby hindering the realization of the defendant's right. However, according to the statement in the Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff's resident registration was cancelled ex officio on May 10, 2003, and re-registered on April 6, 2005 and re-registered on January 12, 2006 and re-registered on March 14, 2012 and re-registered on March 26, 2012. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above facts alone interfere with the realization of the defendant's right to claim collection, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's application or the defendant's exercise of right to claim a civil lawsuit cannot be impeded due to the plaintiff's unknown address.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim of this case.

arrow