beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 30, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties that borrowed money from the non-party Korea Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Non-party Mutual Savings Bank”) on the loan, but failed to repay the money from January 1, 2003 to the present date after delinquency. Since the period of commercial extinctive prescription of KRW 4,870,59 has expired five years from the above delinquency date, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Defendant who acquired the above loan claim from the non-party Mutual Savings Bank did not have the above loan obligation. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription was interrupted by filing an application for a payment order against the Plaintiff before the expiration of the commercial extinctive prescription of the above loan obligation and the judgment became final and conclusive
2. Determination
A. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed money from a bank on July 30, 2002 by setting the term of the loan as January 30, 2003; (b) the Defendant acquired the above loan credit; (c) as of May 9, 2014, there remains KRW 2,142,313 in total as of May 9, 2014 in total, KRW 4,870,59 in total as of KRW 2,728,286 in total; and (d) on the other hand, Nonparty Bank filed an application for payment order for the above loan debt with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Hu7183 on September 18, 2006; and (c) the Seoul Central District Court rendered a favorable decision as to KRW 1327160 on May 27, 2007 and recognized that the above court rendered a final judgment of the Plaintiff on May 207.
B. According to the above facts, the above loan claims against the plaintiff of the non-party bank were suspended by the above payment order and the judgment, and the ten-year extinctive prescription will run anew from the time the above judgment became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above loan obligations to the defendant who acquired the above loan claims.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the debt owed to the non-party bank was extinguished by prescription is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's objection.