beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The judgment on the cause of the claim that Defendant A received 3,60,000 won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on December 24, 2002 at the interest rate of 19% per annum, 24% per annum, and 24% per annum, and the loan period of 24 months; Defendant B (former name C) on the same day jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against Defendant A; D on September 30, 2003, transferred the above loan obligation against Defendant A (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”); and notified the Plaintiff on the same day; Defendant A’s interest and interest on the instant loan of this case was transferred to the Defendants; Defendant A did not conflict with each other under subparagraphs 1 and 4; and Defendant A’s interest and interest on the instant loan of this case as of October 30, 2018 (principal principal, 1,411,636 overdue interest, 8,101, and 359).
Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 31, 2018 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, with respect to KRW 9,512,995 and KRW 1,41,636.
2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was a commercial bond and the period of extinctive prescription expires five years. Thus, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was due on December 25, 2004 (24 months). Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence No. 5, it can be recognized that Defendant A partially repaid the principal and interest of the instant loan from February 28, 2005 to December 31, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for the instant loan was suspended, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment order was received on November 21, 2018, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment order is obviously based on the record, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment order has merit.