양수금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,539,230 as well as to the plaintiff from October 25, 2003 to March 208.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the amount of KRW 2,539,230 and damages for delay. On March 19, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff stating that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 2,539,230 won and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to March 12, 2008, and the amount of interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gaso267278),” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 16, 2008.
B. Thereafter, on March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant to the Busan District Court of the Daegu District Court for the extension of extinctive prescription period of the above final and conclusive judgment claim (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Hu672, Apr. 27, 2018). After the withdrawal of April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order with the same content and submitted it to the instant legal proceedings on May 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,539,230 won with 17% per annum from October 25, 2003 to March 12, 2008; 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as requested by the plaintiff.
In addition, as long as the lawsuit of this case was brought within six months from the time the lawsuit of this case was withdrawn in order to extend the extinctive prescription period of the claim established by the plaintiff, the Daegu District Court 2018Hu672, the Daegu District Court 2018Hu672, which was brought before the extinctive prescription period
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the conclusion is different, which dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit.