Plaintiff (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Cho Jong-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 12, 2008

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 Co., Ltd shall pay 757,781,556 won and 417,696,49 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant 2 is jointly and severally with Defendant 1 Company;

(i) 426,492,791 out of the amounts set forth in paragraph (a) above and 235,086,938 won from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment, 20% of the amounts set forth in paragraph (a) above shall be paid.

D. 310,920,00 won out of the money described in paragraph (a) above and 20% interest per annum from July 31, 2008 to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to each entry of evidence No. 1-1 to evidence No. 9-2:

(1) At the time, Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by the Defendant Company to Nonparty 1 pursuant to the first and second credit transaction agreements (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

1. The maximum amount of credit limit (unit of : USD) 1. December 29, 2001 / Defendant 2 / [Guarantee Limits: USD 459,711,900 = USD 353,000 (exchange rate of 1302.3) as of June 29, 2001) 1-1. Additional Agreement (Limit of 150,000) / 20. 1-1-2. Additional Agreement (Total Amount of 380,000) on July 4, 2001 (Total Amount of 380,000,000) additional Agreement of USD 20. 1-2. 130,000 (Total Amount of 50,000,000) additional Agreement of KRW 20-130,000 on August 130, 201 (Total Limit of 5,000) additional Agreement of KRW 130-4.7.20

B. According to the Liber Nos. 1 and 2 credit transaction agreements, if the Defendant Company fails to perform its obligation on the expiration date of the credit term or loses the benefit of time, it shall pay the credit balance in addition to the annual interest rate of 18%.

Non-party 1 bank opened a letter of credit on behalf of the defendant company and paid to each negotiating bank the letter of credit as follows.

The amount of subrogated payment on the date of the issuance of the letter of credit No. 19, 154, 204 on August 119, 2003, the sum of the relevant credit transaction agreements and/or 1 omitted on August 26, 2002, contained in the main sentence, shall be the amount of the first credit transaction agreements/436,373,949 2 omitted on September 5, 2002, 13, 49,808, 283 omitted on September 13, 2003; 283 omitted on September 23, 2003; 820,072 omitted on September 28, 2002; and

x) The Defendant Company, upon paying the letter of credit as above, did not pay the debt owed to Nonparty 1 in accordance with the credit transaction agreement between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2.

(v) On September 15, 2003, the non-party 1 bank transferred the claims against the Defendants to the non-party 2 limited liability company and notified the Defendants of the transfer on October 9, 2003. ② On September 29, 2005, the non-party 2 limited liability company transferred the claims against the Defendants to the non-party 3 limited liability company and notified the Defendants of the transfer of claims at that time. ③ The non-party 3 limited liability company transferred the claims against the Defendants to the Plaintiff on August 2, 2007, and notified the Defendants of the transfer of claims on October 8, 2007.

⑹ 원고의 피고들에 대한 양수금채권 중 제1 여신거래약정에 기한 채무는 426,492,791원(원금 235,086,938원 + 지연손해금 191,405,853원)이 남아 있고, 제2 여신거래약정에 기한 채무는 331,288,765원(원금 182,609,561원 + 지연손해금 148,679,204원)이 남아 있다.

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from July 31, 2008 to the day of full payment of 757,781,556 won (the first credit transaction agreement + KRW 426,492,791 + KRW 331,288,765 of the second credit transaction agreement) and the principal amount of KRW 417,696,499 (the first credit transaction agreement + KRW 235,086,938 of the first credit transaction agreement + KRW 182,609,561 of the second credit transaction agreement). The Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with Defendant Company to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the 2000 to the day of full payment of the principal amount, KRW 309,719,190 of the first credit transaction agreement to the day of full payment, KRW 2308,2984,2970.36.20

2. Determination on the assertion regarding extinctive prescription

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Defendants asserted that since the lawsuit of this case was filed on April 24, 2008 at the lapse of five years from February 6, 2003 (the date of payment on the letter of credit by Nonparty 1 Bank), the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company was extinguished by prescription, and that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2, a joint guarantor, also expired by incidental nature.

D. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that on February 13, 2003, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, ○○dong (hereinafter omitted number 1 omitted), and (hereinafter referred to as ○○ apartment (hereinafter referred to as “the real estate of this case”) as to the real estate of this case owned by the defendant 2, the decision to commence a voluntary auction was made on February 13, 2003 by the Seoul District Court Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court around 2003ta2956, and accordingly, the execution procedure of this case was completed by October 6, 2003.

The defendants asserted that the above decision of commencement of voluntary auction had not been delivered to the defendant company, which is the debtor, and that the statute of limitations has not been interrupted.

(b) Markets:

(i)Recognitions

In full view of the evidence No. 11 through No. 14, the following facts may be acknowledged as a whole in the statement of No. 11 to No. 14:

㈎ 피고 2는 2001. 6. 28. 소외 1 은행과 사이에, 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 피고회사가 이 사건 제1, 2 여신거래약정에 따라 소외 1 은행에 대하여 부담하는 채무를 피담보채무로 하고, 채무자는 피고회사로 하며, 채권최고액을 2억 원으로 하는 근저당권설정계약을 체결하고, 같은 날 근저당권설정등기를 마쳤다.

㈏ 소외 1 은행은 2003. 1. 20. 피고들에게 ‘금융기관부실자산 등의 효율적 처리 및 한국자산관리공사의 설립에 관한 법률’ 제45조의2 제2항 에 따라 이 사건 부동산에 대한 임의경매를 신청하겠다는 내용의 ‘경매실행 예정사실 통지서’를 발송하였다. 소외 1 은행은 서울북부지방법원에 2003타경2956호 로 이 사건 부동산에 관한 임의경매신청을 하여 서울북부지방법원은 2003. 2. 13. 경매개시결정을 한 다음 경매절차를 진행하여 2003. 9. 3. 이 사건 부동산에 관한 매각결정을 하였고, 2003. 10. 6. 배당이 완료되어 경매절차가 종료되었다.

㈐ 이 사건 제1, 2 여신거래약정 체결 당시, 피고회사는 주소가 변경된 때에는 곧 서면으로 소외 1 은행에게 신고하여야 하고 만일 그 신고를 하지 않음으로써 피고회사에 대한 통지 또는 송부된 서류 등이 도달되지 않은 경우에는 보통 도달하여야 할 때에 도달된 것으로 간주하기로 약정하였다.

Shebboards Shes

㈎ 채권자와 채무자와 사이에 채무자의 주소가 변경된 때에는 곧 서면으로 채권자에게 신고하여야 하고 만일 그 신고를 하지 않음으로써 채무자에 대한 통지 또는 송부된 서류 등이 도달되지 않은 경우에는 보통 도달하여야 할 때에 도달된 것으로 간주하기로 약정하였다면, 위 약정은 채권자가 채무자에 대하여 하는 모든 통지 또는 서류의 송부에 적용되는 것이라 할 것이어서, 다른 사정이 없는 한 실체법상 시효중단의 효력이 있는 최고나 민법 제176조 의 시효중단 사유의 통지를 제외하는 것으로는 해석되지 않는다. 또한 위 약정은 채무자에 대한 통지의 방법을 정한 것일 뿐 시효중단 사유인 최고나 통지를 배제하려는 것이 아니므로 이를 가지고 시효중단 사유인 최고나 통지에 관한 소멸시효를 배제, 연장 또는 가중할 수 없도록 규정한 민법 제182조 제2항 에 위반되는 것이라고 할 수도 없다( 대법원 1987. 12. 8. 선고 87다카1605, 1606 판결 참조).

㈏ 이 사건의 경우와 같이 물상보증인인 피고 2가 채무자인 피고회사의 대표이사인 경우에는, 피고 2의 재산에 대한 압류사실을 당사자 사이의 합의에 따라 피고회사에게 발송송달의 방법으로 통지하더라도, 채무자가 시효의 중단으로 예측하지 못한 불이익을 입게 되는 것을 막아주기 위한 민법 제176조 의 취지에 어긋나지 않는다.

㈐ 앞서 본 바와 같이, 소외 1 은행이 2003. 1. 20. 피고들에게 ‘경매실행 예정사실 통지’를 하여, ‘금융기관부실자산 등의 효율적 처리 및 한국자산관리공사의 설립에 관한 법률’ 제45조의 2 제1항 에 따라 ‘발송송달의 특례’를 적용받아 이 사건 부동산에 관한 임의경매절차가 진행되었다면, 민법 제176조 에서 말하는 ‘시효의 이익을 받은 자에 대한 통지’가 있었다고 할 것이다.

㈑ 그러므로 원고의 피고회사에 대한 양수금채권의 소멸시효는 이 사건 부동산에 관한 경매개시 결정일인 2003. 2. 13. 무렵 중단되었다. 피고들의 소멸시효 항변은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)