(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.12.10 2020가단7121

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.12.10 2020가단7121

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On March 25, 2005, the fact that there is no dispute with D (hereinafter “D”) was sentenced to the Busan District Court Decision 2005Kadan29791 that "the plaintiff shall pay D 21,493,875 won and 20% interest per annum from June 1, 2005 to the day of complete payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The fact that the judgment of this case became final and conclusive at that time is no dispute between the parties.

2. We's arguments and judgments

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant's claim against the plaintiff was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

B) Even if there was a collection order, as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not have any claim against the garnishee in the case of the seizure and collection order, and thus, the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the instant judgment does not become effective due to the above order. 2) Since the Defendant alleged by the Defendant issued the Busan District Court Order 201TTTT 32417 and the collection order, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was suspended by the extinctive prescription of the instant judgment.

B. Determination of the Plaintiff and the Defendant together are examined.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 6, 7, and 1-2, the defendant acquired the claim based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiff from D on December 17, 2008, and obtained the execution clause of succession from the Busan District Court on July 8, 201, and seven financial institutions, including debtor and corporation E, as the third debtor on September 14, 201, the defendant was issued a collection order and collection order with the Busan District Court 201TT 32417 and then delivered the above order to the third debtor on September 14, 201. The fact that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and the third party at the time of the seizure of the claim and the fact that there was no transaction between the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단37979

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.19 2019가단5230

-인천지방법원 2016.06.03 2016가단1624

-인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가단41063

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가단5129998