logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단99170
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Order No. 2016 tea25847.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed money from Nonparty B, and issued to B a promissory note with the amount of KRW 8,000,000 and the due date for payment for the secured interest.

B. On October 19, 2006, B applied for the seizure and collection order against the business bonds and the sales profit distribution claim that the Plaintiff against the non-party company was issued a seizure and collection order against the non-party company, and the original copy of the decision on the seizure and collection order was served on the plaintiff by means of service by public notice.

C. The defendant is the defendant from B to B.

The Plaintiff asserted that the loan of this case was transferred on January 26, 201, as of March 21, 2006, KRW 5 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). Around May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea25847, and applied for a payment order with respect to the Plaintiff on June 9, 2016, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 5 million won and 32,100 won per annum to the Defendant for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). This was served on the Plaintiff on June 21, 2016, and became final and conclusive as it is.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the assignment of claims regarding the instant loan, as alleged by the Defendant, did not meet the requisite to set up against the Plaintiff cannot be set up against the Plaintiff, and the said loan claim has already expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order

(b) Assignment of claims;

arrow