(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2016가단5193046

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2016가단5193046

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 90,137,145 and KRW 42,320,570 among them, from April 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the facts are recognized as identical to the statement on the cause of the claim in the separate sheet. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from April 2, 2016 to the date of full payment, for the balance of the principal and interest of the obligation as of April 1, 2016, for KRW 90,137,145, and the balance of principal 42,320,570.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the credit card payment claim (hereinafter "claim of this case") of the new card company (the name before the change: EL card company; hereinafter "new card") among each claim stated in the attached form of claim has expired by prescription.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 5-2, the new card filed an application against the defendant for a payment order claiming payment of credit card using the credit card on the ground of the claim of this case (Dasan District Court 2006j. 32). The defendant did not raise an objection despite being served with the original copy of the payment order, and thus, the payment order became final and conclusive around that time. The new card filed an application for a seizure and collection order against the defendant's third debtor (Ss. Busan Bank, Korea, and National Agricultural Cooperative Federation) with the execution bond of this case as the execution bond of this case (S.T. 206T. 8907), and on July 6, 2006, the new card issued a seizure and collection order against the defendant and the third debtor. At that time, it can be acknowledged that the above order was served on the defendant

C. If so, the statute of limitations of the claim of this case was interrupted by the seizure and collection order, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed within 10 years from the above date.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Full acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.21 2016가단5209187

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2016가단5162424

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2016가단5150711

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.01.10 2017가단106042

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가단5187744