beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 142,05,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the fact that B had claims against the Defendant for the amounting to KRW 142,005,00,00, and that B transferred the above claims to the Plaintiff on August 19, 2016, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims around that time.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 142,05,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 16, 2016 (the day following the day on which the instant complaint filed by the Plaintiff, which was served on the Defendant, is served) to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant shall raise an objection against the extinctive prescription.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, as to the payment of the price for goods equivalent to KRW 158,318,000 on June 2, 2004 to B, the defendant agreed to pay KRW 30,000,000 on October 2, 2004, KRW 100,000 during the period from February 2005 to March 2005, and KRW 28,318,000 on June 2005, it is clear that the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case on September 30, 2016, even after the expiration of the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years from June 2, 2005, which is the date of the above final repayment agreement.
According to these facts, the defendant's above defense seems to be well-grounded.
However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 and the whole argument, the defendant's argument that the defendant deposited 16,313,000 won in several times from January 20, 2009 to February 29, 2016 as bank account No. 4. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above deposit was made by the defendant renounced and deposited the benefit of the expiration of the extinctive prescription as to the above goods' payment obligation. Thus, the defendant's objection against the extinctive prescription is therefore groundless.
The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.