양수금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant's 2,243,478 won and 1,010,101 won among them to the plaintiff on April 26, 2008.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the facts recorded in the grounds for the claim can be acknowledged.
(‘Creditor’s “creditor” is the Plaintiff, and “debtor” is the Defendant) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from April 26, 2008 to the date of full payment.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.
(1) The judgment of the court of first instance, which held that the Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection pointing out by the court of first instance, is invalid, and thus has no effect of interrupting prescription. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench