logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.15 2017가단11201
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion that the plaintiff asserted that the claim based on the payment order (2016 tea 5969) issued by the Incheon District Court was extinguished by the completion of prescription, and that the defendant received a final and conclusive judgment on the above claim before filing the above payment order, and that the statute of limitation was suspended.

2. Determination

A. On October 24, 2003, EL Card Co., Ltd. transferred the Plaintiff’s credit card payment amount of KRW 13,858,264 and interest thereon, delay damages claim against the Plaintiff. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the above transfer. The Defendant filed a lawsuit for the acquisition amount seeking the payment of the above transfer amount of KRW 13,858,264 and its payment amount of KRW 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to November 17, 2006, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit for the payment of the transfer amount of KRW 2006,690 with the Namyang-si District Court Decision 2006Da39040, Nov. 306, 2006 with the court ordering the Plaintiff to pay the above transfer amount of KRW 13,858,264 and its payment amount of KRW 17% per annum from November 18, 2006 to the date of full payment order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The extinctive prescription of a claim is interrupted by a judicial claim, and the period of prescription interrupted by a judicial claim is newly run from the time when the judgment became final and conclusive, and the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment becomes ten years (Article 165(1), Article 168(1), and Article 178(2) of the Civil Act), and Article 178(2) of the Act provides that according to the evidence No. 4 of the judgment, the judgment No. 2006Gau-si District Court 20040, supra, may be recognized as the facts established on December 24, 2006. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of a claim for the

arrow