beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단5105520

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 139,890,228 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from January 12, 2006 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan214737 decided that the above court rendered a ruling that "B, the defendant, and C jointly and severally pay to the non-party company 139,890,228 won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from January 12, 2006 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), which became final and conclusive on February 18, 2006.

B. On May 201, the Plaintiff acquired bonds based on the instant judgment from the non-party company (hereinafter “instant bonds”) around May 201, filed an application for the instant payment order against the Defendant, etc. (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the competent court for the extension of the statute of limitations on February 15, 2016. However, on April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff was unable to serve and perform the instant litigation procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap 2 and Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the party's assertion

A. According to the facts based on the judgment of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in paragraph (1) of this case to the plaintiff according to the judgment of this case.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that since the commercial extinctive prescription for the royalty obligation of B Co., Ltd., the principal debtor, has expired, the defendant's joint and several liability has expired.

In this case, a claim for a final and conclusive judgment shall proceed with ten years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and where a claim for a payment order is performed as a litigation procedure by an obligee’s application for a lawsuit, the lawsuit shall be deemed to have been instituted at the time of application for a payment order (Article 472(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In such cases, the interruption of prescription by the payment order shall be deemed to have been instituted at the time of application for a payment order, not at the time when the lawsuit is instituted.