국채원리금반환
2008Gahap19921 Return of the principal and interest of state bonds
A (29 years old, South)
Law Firm Dongi, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant]
Korea
April 22, 2009
May 27, 2009
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 101,00,000 won with 5% per annum from September 1, 1998 to the pronouncement date of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
1. Basic facts
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement in subparagraph 1-1 through 11.
The plaintiff holds 11-Class 1 national housing bonds issued by the Minister of Finance and Economy (total face value of KRW 101,00,000) as follows, and requested the payer to repay after the date of redemption, but was refused to pay.
A person shall be appointed.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of the above state bonds to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.
B. Since the defendant claims that the principal and interest of the above state bonds were extinguished by the prescription period, it is obvious that the above state bonds were repaid on August 31, 2002 at all, as seen above, Article 15 (5) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by the Housing Act, May 29, 2003) and Article 17 of the former State Bond Act (amended by Act No. 7345, Jan. 27, 2005) provide that the statute of limitations of state bonds shall be five years for principal and two years for interest. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on October 23, 2008, five years after the above repayment date, and since the above claim of the principal and interest of the state bonds was already extinguished by the prescription period prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's defense is justified. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the statute of limitations period of limitations period was expired by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations period.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Chief Judge Park Tae-tae
Judge Lee Dong-dong
Judges Kang Jeong-hee