beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Plaintiff
The successor's claim is dismissed.
2. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The occurrence of credit card payments liability;
A. On October 31, 2005, the Defendant obtained and used a credit card from a foreign exchange credit card company. (2) On November 22, 2005, the foreign exchange credit card company transferred the credit card payment claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the said assignment by content-certified mail on November 22, 2005.
3) On November 1, 2010, the instant claim was transferred in order from the Plaintiff to Tyman Loan Co., Ltd., and from Tyman Loan Co., Ltd, to the Plaintiff’s successor on April 30, 2012. The Plaintiff’s successor transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff’s successor on January 26, 2018, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the instant claim by content-certified mail on April 20, 2018. 4) On January 20, 2009, the principal amount of the instant claim was KRW 5,566,286, and interest interest was KRW 7,36,40.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant should pay the plaintiff's successor's successor's principal amount of KRW 5,566,286 among the bonds of this case and damages for delay.
2. The defendant's defense against the defendant applied the five-year statute of limitations to commercial claims, and the lawsuit in this case was filed five years after the due date of the claim in this case was around May 2003, and the extinctive prescription has expired.
The instant claim constitutes commercial claims with credit card payment claims, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is applicable pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.
Although it is impossible to accurately understand the maturity of the instant claim, according to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant left China on April 14, 2003. Thus, at the latest, it is presumed that the Defendant’s departure from China around May 2003 was the maturity of the instant claim.
The plaintiff's ground for appeal.