beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff filed a payment order against the defendant as Seoul District Court 9j14539 and received the payment order in the above court. This payment order was finalized on July 9, 1999. The defendant filed a complaint against the defendant on the charge of fraud because the defendant did not pay his/her debt finalized by the above payment order. The defendant approved the above debt by having C as joint and several debt guaranteed by the plaintiff at the place where he/she met with the plaintiff on March 17, 2003 to receive an agreement from the plaintiff, and as such, the above debt was approved by having C as joint and several debt guaranteed by the above payment order. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above claim is not completed, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 14, 2013 for the extension of the extinctive prescription period.
2. In principle, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, there is a benefit in the lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the established payment order. However, this is reasonable only when the interruption of prescription results in the maintenance of the claim as it is, and where there is no benefit in maintaining the claim as it is, the lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription is not allowed as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.
In full view of the purport of the argument as to the instant case’s health account and evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant by Seoul District Court 9j14539, and the payment order became final and conclusive on July 9, 199. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 14, 2013, which was ten years from that time, is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, which was finalized by the above payment order, had expired by prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
I would like to say.
The plaintiff recognizes the existence of the above debt against the plaintiff by the defendant entering C as a joint guarantor with respect to the above debt on March 17, 2003.