beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.09.15 2015가단29072

구상금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 61,912,920 to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

Reasons

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition are either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

On April 12, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into a guarantee insurance contract for small loans to secure C’s obligations for loans to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.

B. The Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed C’s indemnity liability against the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. C fails to repay the above loan obligations, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,324,655 to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on July 28, 1995.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C and the defendants as Jeonju District Court 2005Kadan25832, and the above court on December 22, 2005 "C and the defendants jointly and severally with the plaintiff 21,324,655 won, and the same year from July 29, 1995.

8. It shall pay 14% interest per annum for the period of 27.2, 17% interest per annum from the following day to October 22 of the same year, and 18% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The judgment was pronounced, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2006.

E. On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff recover part of the principal and damages for delay among the obligations based on the above judgment and remains 61,912,920 won at present.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 61,912,920 remaining damages for delay, barring any special circumstance.

B. Defendant A asserts that the Plaintiff’s above claim was extinguished by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years with interest claim.

The damages for delay caused by the delay of the monetary obligation is not an interest in the amount of damages, and the nature of the damages for delay is not an “claim with a period of less than one year” as stipulated in Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act. Thus, it shall not be subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years

Supreme Court Order 9 September 9, 2010