beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,503,917 and KRW 22,00,000 among them, from June 23, 2015 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 6, 2002, the Plaintiff borrowed 25 million won from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. with a maturity of March 5, 2005, 12.4% per annum, and 19% per annum.
B. On June 2013, the Plaintiff received the claim against the Defendant from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and upon delegation by the transferor, notified the Defendant of the assignment by content-certified mail on June 2014.
C. The remainder of the principal as of June 16, 2015 is KRW 22.5 million, and damages for delay are KRW 11,03,917.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 3,503,917 and the principal amount of KRW 22,00,000,000, as claimed by the Plaintiff, 17% per annum from June 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant asserts that the claim of this case expired five years after August 1, 2002, which was the date of loan, as of August 1, 2002.
In this case, the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed five years after the date of the loan or the due date of payment of the above claim is apparent.
However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 9, Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a loan lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2005Kadan11890 on April 19, 2005 and received a judgment in favor of all of the loan on August 23, 2005, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on September 17, 2005.
Therefore, the claim of this case that the plaintiff acquired is proceeding again from September 18, 2005, which was the day following the day on which the above judgment became final and conclusive, and it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed before the expiration of the ten-year prescription period from the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.