logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.29 2015가단512147
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 78,224,957 as well as KRW 25,00,000 among them, from March 11, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation lent the repayment date to B on December 30, 1998 (hereinafter "loan No. 25 million won"); the defendant jointly guaranteed the loan; the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation transferred the loan No. 1 to the plaintiff on March 23, 2005; it notified the defendant of the assignment of the credit; as of March 10, 2015, B and the defendant gave notice of the assignment of the credit; and as of March 10, 2015, the amount unpaid to the plaintiff with respect to the loan No. 25 million won and interest No. 53,180,857 were recognized, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff at the annual rate of 25 million won to the plaintiff on December 30, 2005.

2. The defendant's assertion and the defendant's judgment as to this point of view are alleged to have completed the extinctive prescription of the loan claim of this case. Thus, according to the evidence No. 9, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation filed an application for payment order against B and the defendant as the principal debtor in relation to the loan claim of this case and received payment order from the above court on June 23, 2004. The above payment order against B as the principal debtor was confirmed on May 31, 2005, and the interruption of prescription against B as the joint and several surety is invalid (Article 440 of the Civil Act). The defendant's joint and several surety obligation of this case was suspended until May 31, 2005, and it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription has again run from June 1, 2005. Meanwhile, when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's claim of this case was interrupted by the record No. 13305, May 11, 2015.

3. Conclusion.

arrow