beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. Basic facts 1) On November 28, 2011, Korea-U.S. District Court 201Hu26180, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the Plaintiff on December 19, 2011, but the original copy of the payment order was not served on the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Seoul Southern District Court 2012No301271 (hereinafter “instant claim for the transfer amount”).
(2) On March 14, 2012, the instant lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff for the transfer proceeds was conducted by public notice, and on March 14, 2012, the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9,385,028 and KRW 2,708,689, an amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 28, 2011 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). This judgment became final and conclusive on April 7, 2012.
3) Around October 2, 2012, the Defendant received the instant claim for the instant judgment from the Korea-U.S. Investment Loan Co., Ltd. (around October 2, 2012, the purport of the entirety of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim against the Plaintiff of the Korea-U.S. Investment Loan was extinguished at least on September 5, 2007, after five years from September 5, 2002, which was the date of arrears commencement. 2) However, in a case where the enforcement title, which is the object of objection in a lawsuit of objection, is final and conclusive, the ground for objection should arise after the conclusion of the trial at the court of fact-finding in the relevant lawsuit, and even if such circumstance occurred earlier, even if the obligor was unaware of such circumstance, and was unable to assert it before the closing of argument, it cannot be viewed as the ground for objection.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12728, May 27, 2005). In light of such legal principles, the grounds for the completion of extinctive prescription asserted by the Plaintiff are based on the assertion itself.