구상금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is based on the evidence submitted to this court.
Therefore, the reasons for this court's reasoning are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the Defendants in this court, so it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion was that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Defendants was occurred on May 31, 2007, and the ten-year extinctive prescription has expired.
B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 48,271,330 to the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant commercial building on September 6, 2017 is identical to that of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Defendants runs from September 6, 2017, on which the right of indemnity arises.
The instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on March 29, 2018, before ten years elapse from September 6, 2017, and thus, the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.
The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in its conclusion, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.