logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나2295
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around September 1995, the Defendant entered into an installment sales guarantee contract with the Plaintiff with the content that, in order to guarantee the repayment of the installment payment, the Defendant purchased the part of the automobile of the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff purchased the automobile of the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed all the obligations that the Defendant owes to the Plaintiff under the instant contract.

However, on March 15, 1996, the Defendant delayed the payment of installments, and the Plaintiff claimed insurance money under the instant contract to the Plaintiff, and on March 29, 1996, the Plaintiff subrogated KRW 8,142,201 to the Climate Motor Corporation as insurance money.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the Defendant and B with the Changwon District Court 197Gaso8554 (hereinafter “the previous lawsuit”). On March 26, 1997, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the previous judgment”) on the following grounds: “The Defendant and B jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,235,892 as well as KRW 8,142,201 as to KRW 8,142,201 as to KRW 18% per annum from April 29, 1996 to March 12, 1997 and KRW 25% per annum from March 13, 197 to the date of full payment.” The previous judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 1997.

C. On December 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and B with a view to suspending the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the previous judgment of this case. On December 29, 2006, the court of first instance intended to deliver a certified copy and a notice of performance recommendation to the Defendant’s domicile on December 29, 2006, but it was impossible to serve the certified copy and the notice of performance recommendation on December 29, 2006, respectively on the grounds that the two directors are unknown, by serving the documents of the instant lawsuit, including a copy of the written complaint of this case and a notice of the date for pleading, by serving the date for pleading and closing the pleadings on May 8, 2007.

arrow