beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The facts stated in the separate sheet of claim No. 1 to 3, 6, and 7 (including evidence No. 3) asserted by the plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant A, the principal obligor, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 204,679,157 and KRW 49,539,399 among the balance of principal and interest, and Defendant B, the joint and several surety, jointly and severally with Defendant A, for KRW 183,783,469 among the said money and KRW 45,800,000 among the said money, the delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum under the agreement from November 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations. A.
First of all, in full view of the purport of all the arguments and arguments as to the part of the claims that the Plaintiff acquired from the Specialized Co., Ltd. on the Idsty-backed Securitization Co., Ltd., and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, this part of the claims was concluded around July 7, 199 (the first financial institution: 3,739,399 won, interest rate: 24.5% per annum), and 24.5% per annum on March 16, 2005, it can be recognized that the Specialized Co., Ltd. on the Idty-backed Securitization Co., Ltd. transferred it to the Plaintiff on or around June 21, 2013, and then transferred it to the Plaintiff on or around March 16, 2005. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the claim as the assignee of the claim of this case was extinguished since it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 2, 2015.
This part of the defense by the defendant A is justified.
The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant A the details of filing a lawsuit claiming acquisition amount under the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gaso2127161, which is the transferor of the claim, as Gap evidence 4, but the said lawsuit was filed.