구상금
1. As to KRW 57,980,033 and KRW 57,548,63 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from January 24, 2014 to August 31, 2015.
1. On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant and issued a written credit guarantee agreement to the Defendant.
The defendant submitted a guarantee to B Bank on the same day and received a loan of KRW 95,000,000 from the said Bank.
After that, according to the defendant's credit guarantee accident (the loss of the time limit for the above loan), the plaintiff paid 57,548,633 won on January 23, 2014 by subrogation of the defendant in the above bank.
In addition, in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement, an attempted overdue guarantee fee was 431,400 won until the date of the payment by subrogation.
Meanwhile, as stipulated in the credit guarantee agreement on the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity, the rate of delay determined by the Plaintiff is 12% per annum from January 24, 2014 to August 31, 2015 and 8% per annum from the following day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts finding the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the subrogated payment for the old prize and the delayed payment charge equivalent to the amount of the subrogated payment and the delay damages for the amount of the subrogated payment.
3. The defendant's defense is defense to the effect that the extinctive prescription has expired prior to the application for the instant payment order since November 2012, since he/she suspended the repayment of loans to B Bank.
However, separate from the running of the statute of limitations on the claim for loans against the Defendant of the Bank B, the Plaintiff’s instant claim against the Defendant against the Defendant was incurred on January 23, 2014, on which the Plaintiff subrogated for the Defendant’s obligation to the Bank, and the fact that the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order on January 16, 2019, which was five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations on commercial claims, was clearly recorded and thus, the statute of limitations was interrupted.
As such, the defendant's above defense is without merit.
4. Conclusion.