beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 420,301,851 as well as KRW 96,236,168 among them, from September 9, 2019.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the Financial Cooperative (hereinafter "F") extended loans of KRW 200 million to the defendant limited liability company C (hereinafter "Defendant C") on September 21, 1999, with maturity of KRW 200 million, and with maturity of September 21, 2003 (hereinafter "this case's loan claim"), Defendant D and E joint and several sureties, and F received dividends of KRW 183,763,832 on June 24, 2003 from the Gwangju District Court G, and appropriated such dividends, and F transferred the above loan claim against Defendant C on July 24, 2018 to the plaintiff on September 24, 2019, and recognized the remainder of KRW 96,236,168 and interest of KRW 3264,368,65,6365,68.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 420,301,851 won and 96,236,168 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from September 9, 2019 to the date of full payment.
2. As to the judgment on the defendants' defenses of extinctive prescription, the defendants' claims of the loans of this case against the defendants were extinguished five years after the commercial prescription period.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 5 and 9, F was suspended by receiving dividends through an auction on June 24, 2004, and thereafter, the judgment was finalized on April 24, 2009 by filing a lawsuit against the Defendants for a loan case of 2008da89595, and the judgment was finalized on April 24, 2009. After the transfer of the claim, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice on March 18, 2019, which was 10 years after the said judgment became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on September 9, 2019, which was 6 months after the date on which the said peremptory notice was sent. As such, the statute of limitations for the instant loan claim was interrupted.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the defendants' defense that the statute of limitations expired is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.