구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the whole arguments, when the defendant obtained a loan of KRW 10 million from the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank on May 28, 1996, the plaintiff guaranteed the principal and interest of the loan, and on the other hand, the plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the loan of KRW 14,922,84 to the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank on April 16, 1999 as the guarantor. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above subrogated amount of KRW 14,922,844 and interest or interest interest accrued from the date of subrogation unless there are special circumstances.
2. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim for the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant’s extinctive prescription expired, and that the Plaintiff promised to pay the Plaintiff’s continuous claim for payment, which constitutes an approval of the obligation, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription has ceased to run or renounced the benefit of prescription.
The extinctive prescription of the above claim for indemnity against the defendant by subrogation against the loan institution as a guarantor for the defendant's above loan obligation shall expire if it is not exercised within 10 years from the date of subrogation. Meanwhile, the record and history of the lawsuit filed on January 26, 2015, which was far more than 10 years from April 16, 1999, the date of subrogation by the plaintiff, was clearly recorded. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above claim for indemnity has expired.
Therefore, with regard to whether the above statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the Defendant’s approval of debt or can be seen as giving up the statute of limitations benefits as approval of debt after the completion of the statute of limitations, each of the items in the Health Team and evidence Nos. 5 through 15 can be seen as being sufficient after the expiration of the statute of limitations.