구상금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 40,745,121 to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1-6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be recognized and no other counter-proof evidence exists.
On April 21, 1994, Defendant A entered into an agreement on the guarantee insurance for small loans of KRW 16,500,000 from the Plaintiff and Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”), and Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant guarantee agreement.
On March 22, 2000, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 16,500,000 from Defendant Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
In the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2003Gada1019768, the plaintiff filed against the defendants, and the defendant A rendered a favorable judgment on March 14, 2003, and the defendant B received a decision on performance recommendation on January 15, 2003. The above decision and the above decision on performance recommendation purported that "the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 16,689,863 and KRW 16,500,000 among them," and the above decision became final and conclusive on April 11, 2003 and the above decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on February 6, 2003.
As of March 11, 2013, the principal of the claim for indemnity due to the plaintiff's subrogation was fully repaid, but the amount of 40,745,121 out of damages for delay has not been repaid.
On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 40,745,12 for delay delay as of March 11, 2013 in accordance with the instant guarantee agreement.
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense
A. Defendant B’s defense filed the instant lawsuit on October 28, 2014 after the instant judgment became final and conclusive on April 11, 2003, and the Defendant B’s guaranteed liability expired by prescription.
B. Pursuant to Article 440 of the Civil Act, the interruption of the prescription against the principal obligor is also effective for the guarantor, and all pleadings are made in the statement No. 7.