beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 170,811,460 and KRW 64,647,70 among them, per annum from February 3, 2020 to February 11, 2020.
Reasons
1. The facts in the separate sheet of the judgment as to the cause of the claim (Provided, That the obligee and the obligor refer to the Plaintiff and the Defendant) do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 to A No. 23.
2. Determination on the claim for the completion of extinctive prescription
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant by the management institution of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund that the Plaintiff acquired was extinguished by prescription prior to May 30, 2014 or before May 30, 2019 when five years elapsed since the date of occurrence of the claim.
B. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the creditor DF management institution filed an application for a payment order with the Defendant for the payment order of the claim for reimbursement of the above indemnity amount with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Guj597, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun Court, and the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the above indemnity amount. The above payment order became final and conclusive on September 11, 2008, and the DFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, and the auction procedure for the G compulsory auction of real estate, upon the final and conclusive payment order, by participating in the auction procedure for each of the above final and conclusive payment order and receiving some of the claims of each of the above payment order confirmed on April 6, 2010 and October 26, 2012, respectively.
Ultimately, as long as the Plaintiff’s request for the instant payment order was filed on February 4, 2020 before the ten years passed from October 26, 2012, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription that the period of extinctive prescription of the said claim for reimbursement claim that was acquired by the Plaintiff has expired is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s re-appeal pointing this out has merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so accepted and decided as per Disposition.