beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2015 by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 tea 5333.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case shall not be permitted, since the claim on the payment order of this case had already expired by the statute of limitations.
Even if the period of extinctive prescription of claims established by a judgment falls under the short-term extinctive prescription, such extinctive prescription shall be ten years.
(Article 165(1) of the Civil Act provides that, in full view of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 165(1)1 and 2, Korea Light Bank Co., Ltd., the original creditor, on July 26, 2002, issued a judgment against the defendant on July 26, 200 that "the defendant shall pay to Korea Light Bank the amount of 56,514,852 won and 23,317,594 won per annum from June 16, 200 to the day of full payment" (Seoul District Court Decision 2002Da12846). The judgment became final and conclusive around that time, the defendant received the claim under the above written judgment prior to the transfer of the claim under the above written judgment, and the defendant received the payment order (hereinafter "the order of this case") based on the above claim under the above written judgment.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deny the compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case, given that the claim in the above judgment was extinguished by the extinctive prescription clearly from the calendar point of time ten years after the date of confirmation.
2. The defendant's assertion that the payment order in this case was made after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, but the defendant collected KRW 2,082,303 from the plaintiff's deposit claim in South Chang Chang Chang Chang Agricultural Cooperative based on the seizure and collection order of the claim based on the payment order in this case on January 27, 2016, and the plaintiff did not raise an objection for 40 days and requested the reduction of and exemption from the obligation to the defendant, so the plaintiff should be deemed to have waived the benefit of the extinctive prescription.
A debtor who receives prescription benefits.