beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed in this part;
2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff sought against the Defendant for the payment of each credit he received from the new card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “new card”) and our card (hereinafter “Korea Bank”). The court of first instance accepted the part of the claim that was received from the new card and dismissed the part of the claim that was received from the new card.
Since only the plaintiff appeals against this issue, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of the part against the plaintiff, that is, the claim that the plaintiff acquired from the Korean card (hereinafter referred to as "the acquisition amount of this case").
2. Whether the lawsuit against the money taken over in this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the claim, asserts that on June 21, 2013, our card transferred to himself/herself all the principal of the special bond (paid bond) and the interest accrued therefrom, and notified the transfer thereof, the Plaintiff filed damages for delay with respect to KRW 6,943,139 and the principal and interest accrued therefrom, and KRW 1,77,226.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence No. 6, our card filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2008Gada2794272 on the credit card use price of KRW 1,777,226 and its delay damages. On November 12, 2008, the above court made a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter "decision on performance recommendation of this case") against the defendant on November 12, 2008, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant confirmed on December 3, 2008 as he did not raise any objection. The credit card use price claim as the purpose of the decision on performance recommendation of this case and the credit card transfer price claim as the object of the decision on performance recommendation of this case are the same claims as the credit card purchase price claim of this case.
However, the decision on the execution recommendation of this case has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment (Article 5-7 (1) 1 of the Trial of Small Claims Act), and the plaintiff who acquired the above claims thereafter is granted the succession execution clause as the successor to the Korean card.