(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.10.24 2017가단212295

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.10.24 2017가단212295

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 95,975,807 and KRW 39,560,722 from May 25, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the court rendered a judgment on June 5, 2007 that "the defendant shall pay the defendant 41,370,652 won to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and 15% per annum from February 12, 2007 to April 17, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment," and this judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 17, 2007; the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above indemnity claim to the plaintiff on September 25, 2014; and notified the defendant thereof on October 30, 2014."

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant asserts that the claim acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.

On the other hand, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). The fact that the Credit Guarantee Fund has filed a lawsuit of indemnity against the Defendants and received a judgment of acceptance of the claim, and this judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2007 is as seen earlier, and it is obvious that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on June 8, 2017, which was 10 years after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of a claim for transfer money was interrupted.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant alleged that the Seoul Central District Court filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court 2007dan14, and agreed to pay 40% of the credit guarantee fund and the credit amount in installments during the procedure. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such agreement, the defendant's allegation in this

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법 제165조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.11.21 2017가단201417

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.03.06 2017가단214888

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.09.26 2017가단212318

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.02.27 2017가단206726

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.06.13 2017가단202724