손해배상(기)
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2004 to April 2, 2008 and April 3, 2008. < Amended by Act No. 8857, Apr. 3, 2008>
1. On June 30, 2004, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 60 million with respect to loans, taxes, etc. related to C, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant on July 29, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court 2008da173653 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lawsuit”) and the above court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 60 million won with the annual interest of KRW 50 million from June 30, 2004 to April 2, 2008, and from April 3, 2008 to the day of full payment, 200% each year from April 3, 2008.” The fact that the instant judgment became final and conclusive on September 19, 2008 can either be recognized in full with the entry of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings or it can be acknowledged to the court.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 30, 2004 to April 2, 2008, 20% per annum from April 3, 2008, and 15% interest per annum from April 3, 2008 to the plaintiff.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unreasonable to make the instant claim again after the lapse of 14 years from the settlement of accounts. Even when accepting the said claim as a defense that the extinctive prescription has expired, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment becomes complete unless the Defendant exercises his/her right within 10 years from the time the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). On September 18, 2018, which was September 19, 2018, before the said judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court 2018 tea25233, Sept. 18, 2018. Although the said application was dismissed, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for a payment order again on October 23, 2018 can be recognized by taking into account the entries in the evidence No. 2 and the entire purport of pleadings, or the progress of extinctive prescription was remarkably suspended as an application for the payment order.
(Article 170(2) and (1) of the Civil Act. The defendant's assertion is without merit.
3...