beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as 84,993,220 won on the Plaintiff and the period from July 29, 1998 to August 27, 1998.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 28, 1998, E Co., Ltd. paid KRW 85,00,000 insurance money to F Co., Ltd. under the guarantee insurance contract concluded with Defendant C, D, and B under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant C, D, and B, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Defendants as Seoul Central District Court No. 2008Kadan264085, Oct. 28, 2008, and the above court rendered a judgment on Oct. 28, 2008 that “the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 85,00,000,000, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 14% per annum from July 29, 198 to August 27, 1998,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
B. On October 29, 2013, E Co., Ltd. transferred to the Plaintiff all rights, such as principal amounting to KRW 84,993,220 and delay damages therefor (hereinafter “instant claim”). On December 31, 2013, E Co., Ltd. notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said claim by mail verifying the content of the claim.
C. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.
【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 84,993,220 won and 14% interest per annum from July 29, 1998 to August 27, 1998, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant D’s assertion, Defendant D asserted to the effect that only stolen the name of Defendant B, which stolen his seal imprint, and did not conclude the said joint and several guarantee contract.
However, in the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiff for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim of this case which became final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment, the above defendant's argument as to the existence of the claim of this case goes against the res judicata effect