beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the loan payment order in Seoul Northern District Court 2019 tea69 against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 4,00,000,000, which was lent to the Plaintiff on April 13, 2001 by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2019 tea69, and the said court rendered a decision on January 16, 2019 on the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 4,00,000 to the Defendant and its delayed damages,” and the said payment order was finalized on February 7, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that, even if there was no obligation against the Defendant and even if there was a debt, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should not be permitted, since enforcement based on the instant payment order had already ceased to exist, and accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendant lent KRW 4,00,000 to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2001, but it is recognized that the above loan claim was extinguished by prescription at the latest on April 23, 201. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified.
The Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations is abuse of rights since the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 1,00,000 out of the above loan claims and the statute of limitations was interrupted, or the Plaintiff took the same attitude that the Defendant did not invoke the statute of limitations on October 2010. However, the Defendant’s assertion of the statute of limitations constitutes abuse of rights. However, the result of the fact-finding on the Defendant Company Nos. 2 and 4, and the fact-finding on Co.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had given the same attitude as the Defendant not to invoke the statute of limitations, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.