beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C filed an application for a payment order (this Court Decision 2005 tea20391) against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid construction price of KRW 2 million (hereinafter “instant claim for construction price”). The above payment order was finalized on June 14, 2005 as its claim on the ground that the Defendant did not dispute.
B. On October 4, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C on the assignment of claims for the construction price as above, and C notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on July 20, 2009, and the notification of the transfer reached the Defendant around that time.
C. On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the deposit claims held by the Defendant against D, etc. as the claim amounting to KRW 3,770,280 as the principal and interest of the above claim for construction cost. The above order was served on the Defendant on December 9, 2009.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence (including each number), 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the instant claim for construction cost of KRW 2,00,000,000 per annum from May 31, 2005 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the payment order was served by C, to the day of full payment. Article 3(1) main text of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 3(1) main text of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Oct. 1, 2015).
B. As to this, the defendant asserted that the claim for construction price of this case was extinguished by prescription because the plaintiff did not take any measures for ten years after the payment order became final and conclusive, but since the prescription period of the claim for the construction price of this case was suspended due to the plaintiff's seizure and collection order as seen earlier, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is concluded.