logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.05 2017가단5045366
양수금
Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, claims against the new card company and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. We examine the part concerning the credit card company and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. in the judgment prior to the merits of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 8-11, the fact that ① the judgment of 2012Gaso12710 on August 20, 2012 on the original creditor’s credit card company-related claims became final and conclusive as of September 13, 2012, and ② the judgment of 201Ga61527, May 7, 2012 on the original creditor’s credit related claims, became final and conclusive as of May 26, 2012.

A new suit concerning the same subject matter as the above final and conclusive judgment is not allowed as there is no benefit of protection of rights, barring special circumstances, such as interruption of prescription, and a successor to a party may also enforce compulsory execution by obtaining a succession execution clause.

The plaintiff is a creditor who has taken over the relevant claim from the above financial institutions, and since the period of extinctive prescription remains for not less than five years as of the date of closing argument in this case, there is no benefit of protection of rights.

Therefore, the above part of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination on the merits

A. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, 4, 6, and 7 as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money set forth in the separate sheet No. 2 as the principal amount of the claim related to the Korea Card Co., Ltd. as stated in the separate sheet and interest interest for the claim.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not receive the above loan from the Korea Card Co., Ltd., and that it could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it did not receive the notification of transfer of the instant claim.

According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant entered into a credit card transaction agreement with Korea Credit Card Co., Ltd. on April 7, 2009 and borrowed KRW 14 million from October 1, 201.

arrow