양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The judgment on the cause of the claim that Nonparty E obtained a loan of KRW 50 million from Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) at the interest rate of 17% per annum on June 28, 1995 (hereinafter “instant loan”); the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan; F is a limited liability company on January 22, 2002; G limited liability company; G limited liability company on August 1, 2003; H limited liability company transferred each of the instant loan claims to Nonparty H limited liability company; H limited liability company transferred each of the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2007; as of November 29, 2018, the principal and interest of the instant loan was totaled KRW 129,521,265 (principal amount, KRW 43,869,253) and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments are not disputed between the parties concerned; or it is recognized that the entire arguments and arguments are not disputed.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from November 30, 2018 to the date of full payment, barring special circumstances, with respect to the above KRW 129,521,265 and KRW 43,869,253 among them.
2. The defendant's defense, etc. is proved to have been extinguished upon the completion of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription from the date of occurrence of the loan of this case.
Although the loan of this case constitutes a commercial claim to which the period of extinctive prescription of at least five years under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies as a unilateral commercial activity, it is recognized that F filed a lawsuit against the defendant claiming the performance of joint and several liability obligations concerning the loan of this case, and the judgment accepting the claim was rendered on January 7, 2003 and confirmed on February 1, 2003, and the plaintiff was the successor after the closing of argument on the loan of this case. Thus, the claim that the extinctive prescription has expired prior to the above is not permissible against the res judicata effect of the above judgment. However, the ten-year extinctive prescription period under Article 165(1) of the Civil Act has expired since the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive. < Amended by Act No. 15148, Dec. 6, 2018>