대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from May 29, 2005 to September 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the loan amounting to KRW 10,000,000,000, as the Daegu District Court Decision 2005Gau4158 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On June 9, 2005, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 29, 2005 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 15, 2005.
B. On September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a seizure and collection order with the judgment of the previous suit of this case as the executive title. On September 10, 2010, the said court issued a seizure and collection order (2010TT No. 17265). The foregoing written decision was served on the Defendant, who is the debtor, on September 15, 2010, on the house of father-young Co., Ltd., the third debtor, and on December 9, 2010.
C. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant as the cause of the same claim as the instant previous suit.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to Article 168 of the former Civil Act, seizure is a cause for interruption of extinctive prescription. According to Article 227(3) of the Civil Execution Act, seizure order against a claim takes effect when it is served on a third party debtor. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the judgment of the preceding suit against the Defendant against the Defendant was suspended on September 15, 2010 when the seizure and collection order, which was served on the third party debtor, was served on the non-permanent house.
Ultimately, the filing of the instant lawsuit is for the interruption of prescription for the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the benefit of protection of rights is recognized.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated by applying 20% per annum from May 29, 2005 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.
3...