beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,916,660 and KRW 30,601,778 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from February 14, 2017 to March 14, 2017.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the facts of the reasons for the claim are recognized.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 73,916,660 won in total and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from February 14, 2017 to March 14, 2017, which was served by the warden from February 14, 2017, and 15% per annum from March 15, 2017 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff asserted was a commercial bond and the five-year statute of limitations has expired.
B. The instant credit guarantee was provided to farmers who lack security capability under the Act on the Credit Guarantee for Farmers and Fishermen, and was provided with agricultural funds to guarantee their debts, and was not for profit.
Furthermore, the plaintiff can not be regarded as a merchant under the defendant Commercial Code as a special corporation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.
Therefore, 10 years, which are the extinctive prescription of claims under the Civil Act, are applied, since the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity acquired by subrogation for the Defendant based on the credit guarantee agreement in this case, is not a commercial claim.
However, in addition to the aforementioned evidence and the statement of evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the plaintiff paid the principal and interest of loan to the defendant's Ksansan Agricultural Cooperative on December 20, 2006, and the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation on December 13, 2007 as the Jeonju District Court 2007Da12132 on January 25, 2008, and the individual rehabilitation procedure commenced on January 25, 2008. The plaintiff's claim for indemnity was entered in the list of creditors, the court authorized the repayment plan on July 25, 2008. The plaintiff was paid some amount according to the repayment plan until February 19, 2009, but the individual rehabilitation procedure abolished on June 4, 2009.