[구상금][공1991.12.1.(909),2692]
The case holding that it shall be deemed a statutory interest claim under Article 425 (2) of the Civil Act to claim an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the date of service of the complaint after the performance of the guaranteed obligation when the Credit Guarantee Fund exercises the right to indemnity against other joint and several guarantors.
The case holding that it should be viewed as a legal interest claim under Article 425 (2) of the Civil Act which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 441 (2) of the same Act to claim an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from the date of service of the complaint after the repayment of the principal obligation to other joint and several guarantors after the credit guarantee fund extinguished the principal obligation due to the repayment of the principal obligation.
Articles 425 and 441 of the Civil Act
Attorney Jeong-jin et al., Counsel for defendant
Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 91Na10420 delivered on May 29, 1991
The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff shall be reversed.
This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Judgment on the defendant's appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above non-party 1's claim on June 30, 1982 for the above non-party 1's loan 50,000 won from the Industrial Bank of Korea for the above non-party 1's financial loan loan 50,000 won. The plaintiff's above non-party 2's loan loan 50,000 won for the above non-party 1's above non-party bank's loan loan 50,00 won for the above non-party 1's loan loan 50,000 won, and the credit guarantee period for the above non-party 1's loan 50,000 won was set on June 25, 1985. The court below rejected the above non-party 2's claim for the above non-party 1's loan 9's loan 50,000 won and the above non-party 1's loan 50,000 won for the above non-party 1's loan 9.
2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for delay damages from the date of the repayment of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove that he had delayed payment by claiming performance prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
However, according to Article 425 (2) of the Civil Code which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 441 (2) of the Civil Code, since the guarantor's right to indemnity includes statutory interest from the date of exemption, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's right to claim an amount of money at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the date of discharge of guaranteed obligation to the date of delivery of complaint from the date of discharge of guaranteed obligation shall be deemed a statutory interest claim under the above Act, and it is unreasonable
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the part of the judgment below dismissing the above statutory interest claim is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)