beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Samsung Card Co., Ltd. received an order against the Defendant to pay the payment amount of KRW 3,491,097 and KRW 3,413,812 of the above amount from February 22, 2006 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order from March 3, 2006. The Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks from March 3, 2006, and the above payment order was finalized on March 18, 2006.
(hereinafter the above payment order is the final and conclusive payment order, and the bonds based thereon are the bonds of this case). (b)
On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff received the instant claim through the Solomon Savings Bank and the Nenesa company, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on June 5, 2013.
C. As of December 22, 2015, the instant claims remain in KRW 11,875,49, the sum of principal KRW 3,413,812 as of December 22, 2015 and interest KRW 8,461,687.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as requested by the Plaintiff from January 30, 2016 to the day of full payment, as to the total amount of KRW 11,875,49, and the principal amount of KRW 3,413,812, among the principal of the instant claim, from the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.
B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the claim in this case was a commercial bond and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired. However, since the period of extinctive prescription is extended to ten years from the time when the payment order became final and conclusive in accordance with Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
C. Next, the defendant was not served with the original copy of the finalized payment order.