logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 익산시법원 2017.02.16 2016가단103
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s loans to the Plaintiff at the Jeonju District Court, Doksan District Court, 2014j471.

Reasons

1. On May 2, 2001, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim (2001Gau7593) with the Jeonju District Court, Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court, and applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2001, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 18,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from April 26, 2001 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “previous judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 201 (hereinafter “previous judgment”), and on April 28, 2014, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 18,80,00 and KRW 400 from May 7, 2014 to the date of full payment.” The Defendant may not claim payment order from the Defendant for the payment of KRW 18,000 to 201.6.

2. According to the above facts finding, the Defendant’s above loan claims are re-extinctive prescription from the time when the previous judgment became final and conclusive. Since the Defendant applied for the instant payment order on April 28, 2014, it was apparent that ten years have passed since the Defendant applied for the instant payment order, the extinctive prescription for the Defendant’s above loan claims was completed at the time of the application for the instant payment order.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that there was no objection against the previous judgment and the payment order of this case, and there was no lack of assertion on the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, the statute of limitations has been interrupted or the statute of limitations has been waived.

However, just because the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the instant payment order, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff renounced the benefit of prescription and approved the obligation, and that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection at the time of the previous judgment.

arrow