(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.31 2017가단5199478

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 2018.01.31 2017가단5199478

양수금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, our Capital Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit for joint and several debt payment against the Defendant and B, which is the cause of the claim for the instant loan, with the Busan District Court Decision 2007Da4178, Apr. 4, 2007, which was rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on May 9, 2007. After which the judgment became final and conclusive on May 9, 2007, the fact that the claim transferee Co., Ltd., Ltd. issued a collection order with the Busan District Court Decision 2013TTT2873, Nov. 13, 2013, by requesting for the seizure and collection order against the third obligor at that time.

B. There is benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription only where it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription has expired, a claim based on the final judgment.

(1) The term “a claim for a loan in this case” means a claim for a loan in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). However, the term “a claim for a loan in this case” refers to a claim for a loan in this case, which reaches the third debtor, and thus becomes effective as interruption of extinctive prescription retroactively on November 13, 2013 from the date on which the claim is filed, and the interruption of extinctive prescription by seizure continues until the seizure is revoked or the execution

C. Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence that the above seizure order was cancelled or its execution procedure was terminated, it cannot be deemed that the expiration of the extinctive prescription period for the instant loans cannot be deemed that the instant lawsuit has expired, and there is no benefit to protect rights.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.05 2017가단5006262

-청주지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가단11784

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.04.11 2016가단8198

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.29 2019가단233204

-서울서부지방법원 2020.05.07 2019나2265