양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,507,609 and KRW 41,968,876 among them, from July 22, 2019 to the day of full payment.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the instant claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for indemnity”). (B) A claim for indemnity recognized as the cause of the claim.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 100,507,609 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 22, 2019 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant has no defense that there was no joint and several surety for the claim for indemnity of this case.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's signature as a joint guarantor on August 31, 2006 with respect to C's indemnity obligation.
This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
B. Next, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity of this case has expired.
In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 6, the organization that transferred the claim for indemnity of this case to the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the organization applied for a payment order against Eul and the defendant as the official branch court of Daejeon District Court 2009j581, which was cited on August 3, 2009, and the fact that the above order became final and conclusive on August 27, 2009.
Meanwhile, on July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C and the Defendant under the court No. 2019 tea12471 in order to extend the prescription of the claim based on the above payment order. On the other hand, the fact that the above payment order was implemented as the litigation procedure of this case is obvious in records.
(Order for payment to C is determined by public notice). The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.