logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.19 2016나2159
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The judgment as to the cause of the claim was made by the Defendant on around May 200, who was in arrears using the credit card while being used under BC card, and on around May 2002, the fact that the Plaintiff partially repaid part of the overdue credit card usage price, the Plaintiff received the credit card usage price claim against the Defendant, and the fact that the credit card usage price that was not paid as of October 27, 2007, was the principal amount of KRW 2,63,110, delay damages, delay damages, KRW 3,285,134, total amount of KRW 5,918,244 (hereinafter referred to as the “claim”) did not conflict between the parties or can be acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unpaid credit card user fee and damages for delay thereof.

Around May 2002, the defendant's defense as to the defendant's defense was finally repaid in part of the claim of this case. Around May 2007, the five years thereafter, the claim of this case, a commercial claim, expired by prescription.

Judgment

The claim in this case is a commercial claim arising from commercial activities of a credit card company and the extinctive prescription period is five years pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

The extinctive prescription shall proceed from the time when the payment of credit card was in arrears. However, since the defendant's partial repayment of the credit card is an acceptance of a debt, the extinctive prescription shall proceed anew from May 2002 to October 26, 2007, which is apparent that five years have passed thereafter, the claim of this case was filed for the payment order of this case on October 26, 2007, since the prescription has already expired prior to the application for the payment order of this case, the defendant's defense has merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked as it is unfair to conclude otherwise, and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked.

arrow