beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is based on the Seoul District Court Decision 97Gahap4367 delivered on October 7, 1997.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit (Seoul District Court 97Gahap4367) against C (hereinafter “C”) and the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court 97Gahap44367). On October 7, 1997, the above court leased KRW 55,00,000 to C, and the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligation against C, so the Defendants jointly and severally held that the Plaintiff would jointly pay KRW 55,00,000 and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”). On November 9, 1997, the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
B. The Defendant, based on the instant judgment, conducted compulsory execution against the Plaintiff as follows.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. Even if the extinctive prescription of a surety obligation is not completed due to the interruption of the extinctive prescription for the surety obligation, if the extinctive prescription for the surety obligation is completed, the surety obligation shall be naturally extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription.
In addition, even if the surety performed or approved the surety obligation upon expiration of the extinctive prescription for the principal obligation, the waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription for the principal obligation cannot be deemed effective by the act of the surety, other than the principal obligor, and the surety may still claim the extinguishment of the surety obligation on the ground of the expiration of the prescription period for the principal obligation, barring any special circumstances, such as where the surety expressed his/her intent to perform the surety obligation despite the expiration of the prescription period for the principal obligation.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da51192, Jul. 12, 2012). (B)
Judgment
The principal obligation of C and the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability shall be paid to the Defendant.