(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나76869

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) 수원지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나76869

양수금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as to the cause of the claim, according to the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant entered into a credit card membership agreement with Han Bank on September 29, 1994, and as of March 31, 2003, the credit card user fee claim against the defendant of Han Bank (hereinafter "the claim of this case") was the principal amount of KRW 14,472,530, and the attempted interest amount of KRW 5,024,002, and ② The claim of this case was the claim of this case around June 27, 2003, this Seoul Specialized Limited Company for the First Asset-Backed Asset Management, around 208, and around February 16, 2010, and each of the above assignment claims was notified to the plaintiff on February 16, 2010.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal amount of KRW 14,472,530 among the above claims to the plaintiff, who is the final transferee of the claim of this case, and damages for delay.

The defendant's defense is a defense that the claim of this case had expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription. Thus, the five-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply to the claim of this case as commercial claim. In light of the fact that on March 31, 2003, the first assignment of the above claim was already included in KRW 5,024,00,000, and that the financial institution transfers the claim whose due date has not arrived, it shall be deemed that the due date has arrived before March 31, 2003. The application for the payment order of this case is clearly stated in the record that the claim of this case was filed on February 28, 2017, which was five years or more from the above due date. Thus, the claim of this case had already expired prior to the application for the payment order of this case.

The defendant's defense is justified.

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

참조조문

-상법 제64조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.09 2016나21812

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.03 2017나88451

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.11.01 2016가단9307 (1)

-부산지방법원 2016.04.20 2015나40217

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.13 2018나35992