양수금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with the plaintiff KRW 7,638,512 and KRW 3,632,178 among them.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 19, 199, Korea Light Bank Co., Ltd. received all of the loans borrowed to B under the Defendant’s joint and several sureties Co., Ltd. through a limited company specializing in Korean financial third-asset-backed securitization. On February 14, 2007, by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant and B against the Defendant and B on February 14, 2007 against the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gau257830, and by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant and B on February 14, 2007, “the Defendant jointly and severally and severally provided to the Plaintiff with KRW 7,638,512, and 3,632,178 from August 19, 206 to February 8, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
“A favorable judgment of the Plaintiff was rendered, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2007.
B. On June 15, 201, a promotion mutual savings bank, transferred claims based on the said final judgment to the Plaintiff, and notified the said transfer of claims to B on January 10, 2014.
C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of claims based on the foregoing final judgment.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above-mentioned facts, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the above-mentioned B to pay to the plaintiff 7,638,512 won and 3,632,178 won per annum from August 19, 2006 to February 8, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The plaintiff has the interest to bring a lawsuit again for the extension of the prescription period of claims based on the above final judgment.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion, and it is thus cancelled and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount.