logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단5024109
양수금
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)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription: Claim for general loan of a new bank No. 1: from December 10, 2009, the assignment date of the claim, the five-year extinctive prescription period was exceeded, and no other reason exists to interrupt the extinctive prescription period. 2) Claim No. 2, 3, and 4 from December 10, 2009, which is the transfer date of the claim: the five-year commercial prescription period from December 10, 2009, which is the transfer date of the claim; and there is no reason to interrupt the extinctive prescription period. The new credit card price claim No. 3, No. 5 of the instant card price claim was submitted; from around 2005, the five-year commercial prescription period was exceeded. The Plaintiff’s claim No. 9,986, 3222 of the principal of the instant claim was rejected on the ground that the Defendant’s claim for the interruption of the extinctive prescription period was confirmed on the same ground that the Defendant’s claim for the seizure order No. 2129.

arrow