(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가단5146030

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 2018.06.15 2017가단5146030

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for membership with a credit card member and obtained a credit card on the new card. On February 5, 2012, the Plaintiff settled KRW 700,000,000, and thereafter, on June 21, 2013, the new card transferred the Plaintiff’s credit card loans to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff thereof around that time.

B. From February 14, 2001 to February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained and used a credit card with a company bank’s credit card member subscription several times, and the company bank transferred the Plaintiff’s credit card loans to the Defendant on June 28, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff around that time.

C. The Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order seeking payment of the acquisition amount under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2017 tea46979, Feb. 15, 2017, when the Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff; (b) issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 8,081,887 and the amount of KRW 4,473,854 calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 22, 2016 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”); and (c) the instant payment order was finalized on March 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the enforcement based on the instant payment order should not be permitted, as the Plaintiff issued a credit card and used the credit card to fully repay the debt of the credit card loans.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff fully repaid credit card loans.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나54185

-대전지방법원 2016.05.26 2014나107046

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.11 2015나754

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.24 2017가단5133072

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단124844