logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2021.01.20 2020가단5187
시효중단을 위한 재판상 청구 확인
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2011, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s place for delivery as “Sesan City C Loans D (hereinafter “the place of service”). The original copy of the payment order was served on April 12, 201 at the place of service of the instant case. The delivery method column of the service report (hereinafter “the service report of this case”) stated “the Plaintiff was sent to his address, residence,” “E” in the name column of the receiver, and “E” in the relation column of the receiver, and the signature or seal of “spouse” in the signature or seal of E.

B. On April 1, 2011, the judicial assistant officer of the above court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,660,000 and the amount at the rate of 24% per annum from July 1, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The said payment order was finalized on April 27, 201.

(c)

On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of a judicial claim for the interruption of prescription for the interruption of prescription for the interruption of a claim based on the original copy of the instant payment order.

【Unfounded grounds for recognition】 Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In a case where a claim becomes final and conclusive by judgment, etc., a creditor may file a new form of litigation seeking confirmation only to confirm that there was “a claim in trial” for the interruption of prescription for the extinguishment of the claim.

In such a case, the judgment, etc. does not have the effect of substantive law in addition to the interruption of prescription for the claim established by the judgment in a prior suit, etc., so there is no need to examine the existence of the claim including the extinction of prescription and the substantive legal relationship such as the scope of the claim.

The creditor has become "a final and conclusive" due to the cause of the claim and the claim.

arrow