beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim as to the claims Nos. 1 and 2 in the table of the grounds for the claim shall be dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. Determination ex officio as to the claim portion against the claims Nos. 1 and 2 in the table Nos. 1 and 2 in the annexed sheet in the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant claim Nos. 1 and 2”).
A. Ex officio, we examine the legality of the part concerning claims 1 and 2 among the instant lawsuits.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 8, 9-1, 2, and 11, the new card company of the instant claim No. 1 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the use of credit cards on the ground of the cause of the claim (Dasan District Court 2012No. 214553), and the above court rendered a ruling accepting the claim on November 27, 2012. On December 15, 2012, the above judgment became final and conclusive. The Samsung Card Co., Ltd. of the instant claim No. 2 filed an application against the Defendant for the payment order seeking payment of credit card use payment on the ground of the instant claim No. 2 as the cause of the claim (Dasan District Court 2011 No. 28718), and it is recognized that the Defendant did not raise any objection against the payment order on the ground of the Defendant’s receipt of the original copy of the payment order.
C. Where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, there exists a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006), and a successor to the party can enforce compulsory execution by obtaining succession execution clause. Therefore, the same applies to the instant claims 1 and 2, which were finalized by a judgment or a payment order, remains more than five to six years, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired as of the date of closing the argument in this case.
Ultimately, the part of the instant claim Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights.
2. Of the instant lawsuit, there is a judgment as to the claim against the claim No. 3 in the table No. 3 in the attached hereto (hereinafter “instant claim 3”).