[구상금][공1992.7.1.(923),1829]
(a) The case holding that in case where, when a bill with a face value of KRW 10,00,000 which was offered as security was refused to pay at the rate of KRW 11,050,000 which was calculated by adding the interest of KRW 3% per month between the three months from the date of the payment of the bill at the rate of three months after the due date, the principal of the debt at the rate of KRW 10,000 which was agreed to pay at the rate of three percent per month, the interest rate of KRW 10,000 shall be agreed
B. Whether one of the joint and several obligors may subrogate the other joint and several obligors who jointly and severally liable jointly and severally, in the event that he/she exercises the obligee’s claim against the other joint and several obligors by repaying his/her obligation in excess of the portion of his/her internal burden (negative)
A. The case holding that the principal of the above obligation shall be KRW 10,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 11,050,000 shall be KRW 30,000 per month on the last day for the payment of interest, unless there are special circumstances, if the bill was refused to pay the amount of KRW 11,050,000 per month from the date of the payment of the above bill, and the interest rate of KRW 10,000 per month is agreed to pay the principal and interest, barring special circumstances.
B. Where there are several persons jointly and severally liable, the joint and severally liable person for all of them has the right to demand reimbursement against the whole amount of the contribution made by the performance of the guaranteed obligation, and even if one of the joint and severally liable persons has exercised the original claim against the other jointly and severally liable person by paying out his obligation in excess of his own internal share, he may not subrogate the other joint and severally liable person jointly and severally liable for the other joint and severally liable person, who has
A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 447, 481, and 482 of the Civil Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant 1 and one other
Daegu High Court Decision 90Na2810 delivered on December 13, 1990
Of the lower judgment, the part against the Plaintiff against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 is dismissed.
The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendant 1 paid 10,00,00 won at par value of 10,00 and 1 promissory note as security on January 6, 1983, and the non-party 2 asked the non-party 2 to pay 9,640,000 won to the non-party 2 who did not pay 9,00 won for the above 9,00 won after receiving the plaintiff's endorsement in addition to the above promissory note as security on the 30th of the same month, and the non-party 2 did not pay 9,640,00 won to the non-party 1 for the above 6th of January 6, 1983. The plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the non-party 2 paid 9,000 won to the non-party 2 with the above 9,000 won to the non-party 2 as security interest rate of 10,000 won.
However, according to the above decision of the court below, since the above non-party 2 agreed to pay the principal amount of KRW 10,000,000 at a discount of the above non-party 2 as the maturity date of April 6, 1983, with the interest rate of KRW 11,050,000 per month between the three months from January 6, 1983 and April 6, 1983, and the above interest rate of KRW 11,050,000 as the interest rate of KRW 10,000 as the interest rate of KRW 10,000 and the interest rate of KRW 35% per month, barring any special circumstance, the principal amount of the above debt shall be deemed to have been agreed upon as the interest rate of KRW 10,00,00 as the interest rate of KRW 10,00 and the above interest rate of KRW 35% per month.
Therefore, if the plaintiff and the defendants jointly and severally liable to repay to the above non-party 2, the principal amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the interest and delay damages under the Interest Limitation Act within the scope of the agreed rate from January 6, 1983 to the full payment date, but if the plaintiff had the plaintiff discharged all of the above debt, the scope of the plaintiff's joint debtor and joint debtor's indemnity shall be equivalent to 1/2 of the above debt amount unless there is an agreement on internal burden.
Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the principal of the debt of this case did not have an interest agreement of KRW 11,050,000, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rule of experience or the rules of evidence, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.
2. On the second ground for appeal
In a case where there are several persons jointly and severally liable, the joint and severally liable person for all of them has the right to demand reimbursement against all of the contributions made to the performance of the guaranteed obligation (see Article 447 of the Civil Act). Thus, even in a case where one of the persons jointly and severally liable against it exercises the obligee's right to claim against the other persons jointly and severally liable by repaying his obligation in excess of his own internal share, he may not subrogate the other persons jointly and severally liable for the joint and severally liable person.
Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 by the principal obligor against the guarantor is without merit.
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the appeal against Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)