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. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance except for the following additional parts, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if all evidence submitted in the court of first instance are
Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is that the defendant's judgment is based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following additional judgments.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s additional assertion that F, G, and H, as the Defendant’s obligee, seized or seized the instant right to collateral security against the Defendant’s obligee, or that H received the Defendant’s seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff as the garnishee, but did not raise any objection against the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant.
B. Determination 1) As a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription, the recognition of an obligation is established by expressing that the obligor, who is the party to the extinctive prescription benefit, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who is the party to the claim to lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period. The method of indication does not require any form, but can be expressed in an implied manner without necessarily requiring an express statement. However, the implied recognition indication should be made in such a way that the obligor, at least on the premise that the obligor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, can make the obligor be able to conceal the obligation by expressing that the obligor is aware of the obligation. The fact that the obligor has obtained the debt approval as a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription, must be proved by the obligee asserting it (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005; 2005Da64525, Nov. 29, 2007; 2015.