The nature of a claim for interest in arrears of a bank and the period of extinctive prescription thereof;

A claim for interest in arrears against a loan of the Plaintiff bank is also a commercial bond of the same nature as the loan claim, and if it is not exercised for five years, it shall be extinguished by the prescription.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Busan District Court (78Gahap1893)

The part against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows, and the part against the defendant 8, 9, 10, and 11 shall be revoked:

Defendant 1 and 2 jointly and severally paid 541 won to the Plaintiff; Defendant 3 paid 162 won to the said money; Defendant 4, 5, and 7 paid 108 won to the Plaintiff; Defendant 6 paid 54 won to the Plaintiff; and Defendant 1 and 2, respectively.

The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the claims against the defendant 8, 9, 10, and 11 are dismissed.

Of all the costs of this case, the costs between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 among those of the first and second trials shall be 1,000, and one shall be borne by the same defendants, and the remainder and the costs between the plaintiff and the defendant 8, 9, 10, and 11 shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 paid KRW 30,262,463 in money; KRW 1,210,498 in money; KRW 1,210,498 in money; KRW 2,420,97 in money; KRW 4,841,94 in money; KRW 4,841,994 in money; KRW 7,262,91 in money; and KRW 3 paid jointly with Defendant 1 and 2, respectively.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) According to the above 1.0% of 1969 and 2.0% of 10% of 1969 and 3.0% of 10% of 20.0% of 20% of 31.0% of 1969 and 1.0% of 9% of 20,000 per annum of 9.0% of 20% of 1969, 200, 3.00 won of 9% of 9.0% of 20% of 196, 1969, 3.0% of 9% of 20% of 9% of 196, 1969, 3.0% of 9% of 9% of 196, 4% of 9% of 196, 200, 3.00 won of 9% of 20% of 9% of 196, 196.

However, Defendant 1 paid only the principal amount and interest until March 31, 1970 with respect to the above loan (1) through (7) and (9). With respect to the loan (8), the Busan District Court 72Gahap1133 decided against Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, which was enforced by the Plaintiff as the title of debt and appropriated 59,751 won as part of the interest accrued until October 29, 1973 with respect to the loan as part of the interest accrued until the date of the above (8), and the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the remainder of the above loan as total interest amount of 30,262,463 won.

Therefore, first of all, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant 8, 9, 10, and 11 (from next to the defendants) are examined as to the plaintiff's claims against the defendants, and the non-party 1, a joint guarantor of the above defendants, died on October 24, 1976, and according to the contents stated in Eul No. 1 (written adjudication) without dispute over the establishment, the above defendants can recognize the fact that the non-party 1 gave up the inheritance on January 24, 197, it is true that the non-party 1 died within three months from the date of death, and that the above defendants renounced the inheritance on January 24, 197. Thus, the claims against the above defendants on the premise that the non-party 1 is the property successor of the above defendants shall be dismissed without any need to examine the remainder of claims against the above defendants.

The following reasons are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s remaining interest on the loan 1 to 20.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 5.0 won (2) and (7) from April 1, 1970; (b) the remainder excluding part of 541 won for the above loan 2; (c) the period of extinctive prescription of 5 years has elapsed from October 24, 1978; (d) the Plaintiff’s interest on the loan 1 to 30.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 10.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 30.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 5.0 won; (d) the Plaintiff’s interest on the loan 1 to 30.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 30.0 won for the interest on the loan 1 to 30.0 billion won on the loan 1 to 18.3 billion won for the above interest on the loan 1 to 5.7.1 to 19.7.7.0.0

Thus, the above (8) interest interest on the loan until March 6, 1972 also is apparent that the five-year commercial statute of limitations has lapsed.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that, due to such appropriation by the Plaintiff, it should be deemed that the Defendants renounced the statute of limitations interest with respect to interest on all of the loans in this case as well as the above (8). However, in the instant case without any special reason, the said dividend amount was much less than the amount of the above judgment seal or the amount of the enforcement claim, and more than the amount of the above enforcement claim. In light of the above, the Plaintiff arbitrarily appropriated part of the above dividends on a separate case as above 59,751, which had already been paid for part of the interest on the above (8) for which the statute of limitations has already expired, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants renounced

Therefore, Defendant 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 541 won to the Plaintiff, and Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are clearly liable to pay 541 won to the Plaintiff, and it is obvious that Defendant 3 inherited the said money to KRW 162 won, Defendant 4, 5, and 7, each of the said money to KRW 108 won, and Defendant 6 was liable to pay 54 won, respectively, to the Plaintiff. Thus, the said Defendants are obligated to pay the said inherited debt to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant 1 and 2. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim shall be justified within the said limit and the remainder shall be dismissed.

Therefore, (2) Of the original judgment, the part concerning the above cited amount against the Defendants is just and the remaining part and (1) the part against the Defendants is deemed to be unjustifiable, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 385, 386, 95, 93, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines