beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for an order of seizure and assignment of claims against KRW 369,482,418, out of loan claims or investment bond claims with respect to money loaned or invested from August 1, 201 to October 15, 201, as the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu 2016TT2128, and received an assignment order of claims on July 5, 2016 (hereinafter “instant attachment and assignment order”). The attachment and assignment order of this case were served on the Defendant on July 27, 2016 and became final and conclusive on February 7, 2017.
2. The parties' assertion
A. From August 24, 2011 to October 22, 2012, Plaintiff 1) leased KRW 1,500,000 to the Defendant. Of these, Plaintiff 1 had a loan claim amounting to KRW 49,500,000 to the Defendant at the time the attachment and assignment order was served on the Defendant at the time the attachment and assignment order was served on the Defendant. Accordingly, since KRW 369,472,418 out of the above loan claim was entirely paid to the Plaintiff upon the confirmation of the attachment and assignment order of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 369,472,418 and delay damages therefrom. 2) The extinctive prescription of the loan claim against the Defendant was interrupted due to the delivery of the instant attachment and assignment order against the Defendant and the instant lawsuit.
B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not borrow money from C. The remittance details asserted by C on the grounds that C had a loan claim against the Defendant, are either the representative director E of C, who has repaid the loan debt to D employee of the Defendant, or E, who remitted the money transferred from the Defendant’s side to the Defendant’s creditor as a repayment for the Defendant’s obligation. 2) Even if C had a loan claim against the Defendant, the above loan claim expired by prescription.
3. Determination of the cause of the claim Gap 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 19, 20 each.