logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단5127134
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

Reasons

1. The summary of the lawsuit in this case filed a lawsuit against the Defendants by the former creditor, Korea Lease New Co., Ltd. (Cheongju District Court 2003Gahap1769), which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2004, and the Plaintiff received the transfer of the claim. The Plaintiff filed the same lawsuit for the interruption of the statute of limitations by asserting that the statute of limitations on the above claim has expired.

Description CD A of claims

2. In a case where a creditor, who has an executory power of a lawsuit for interrupting extinctive prescription and a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has res judicata effect, re-instigations a lawsuit with the same contents, is unreasonable as there is no benefit in a lawsuit. The same applies to a case where a creditor, who is entitled to succeed execution clause, separately files a lawsuit without filing an application for grant of succession execution clause, after

However, there is a benefit to institute a lawsuit again only when the completion of extinctive prescription is imminent and there is no way to block extinctive prescription except for filing a lawsuit.

According to the health stand and evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the said claim was delivered on August 21, 2014 by the Korea Leaseer Co., Ltd. to KWn Investment Co., Ltd. to KEL loan from KWn Investment Co., Ltd. to KEL loan, to KEL loan from KEL loan to the Plaintiff, and KEL loan to the Defendant Co., Ltd. on July 11, 2014 to the payment order (Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2014j1333) against Defendant A and the joint and several surety Co., Ltd., a principal debtor, and the above payment order was served on August 21, 2014.

However, “judicial claim” under Article 170(1) of the Civil Act is not limited to “instigation of a lawsuit” to receive a final judgment, and the holder of a right is acting for a performance lawsuit.

arrow