(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.01.15 2019가단5119

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) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.01.15 2019가단5119

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Within the scope of KRW 120,000,000 and D jointly and severally with D and one of them shall be 427,520,565 and one of them 102,158.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) In the case of loans raised by the Plaintiff against D, the Defendant, and E by Changwon District Court Decision 2009Da38400, the said court rendered a judgment identical to the attached Table 1 “order” on December 18, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 7, 2010 (hereinafter “instant final and conclusive judgment”).

(2) On November 18, 2019, before the lapse of ten years from January 7, 2010, the day when the above judgment became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 427,520,565 won and 102,158,428 won and 20% interest per annum from November 11, 2019 to the date of complete payment, jointly and severally with D within the limit of 589,258,714 won and 131,070,804 won among them from November 11, 2019 to the date of full payment, and jointly and severally with D within the limit of 84,00,00 won and 589,258,714 won and 131,070,804 won from November 11, 2019 to the date of full payment, with 20% interest per annum of 1,463,494,376 won and 325,284,886 won from among them to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s defense is that the statute of limitations for a claim based on the final judgment of this case has expired.

B. On November 18, 2019, before ten years elapse from January 7, 2010, which was the date on which the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription as seen earlier.

Therefore, the statute of limitations of claims based on the final judgment of this case was interrupted due to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.01.15 2019가단5119

-서울북부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단130707

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2019가합560854

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.19 2016가단13233

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단35540