beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 9, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2,000,000 from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).
B. On November 17, 2010, D transferred to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) the claims for loans against the Plaintiff. On September 11, 2017, E transferred to the Defendant the claims for loans against the Plaintiff.
C. On February 20, 2019, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking “1,030,181 won (the sum of principal and interest, etc. as at the time of each acquisition by transfer up to February 29, 2019)” as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019j.12132, and 1,728,422 won among them were decided as cited on February 20, 2019, and the payment order was finalized on July 3, 2019 as of “48.545% per annum from February 20, 2019 to the date of full payment.”
(hereinafter) The fact that there is no dispute over the claims arising from the above loan, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings, including the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim had already been extinguished upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription on January 12, 2013, which was five years from January 12, 2008 following the original repayment date of the loan, before the Defendant’s application for the above payment order. The Plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above payment order, premised on the existence of the instant claim, should be denied.
As to this, before the expiration of the above extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserted that the period of extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was extended by March 1, 2023, which became final and conclusive by E’s request against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.
3. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: Eul claims against the plaintiff on December 21, 2012, which was before January 12, 2013, as the time of expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea No. 219530, Dec. 21, 2012.