beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant shall pay 504,400 won to the plaintiff as well as 504,400 won from March 1, 2003 to October 18, 2008.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 22, 2002, Korea Telephone Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) posted an advertisement of “B” on the Korean telephone number book published by the Defendant and the Nonparty Company, and agreed to receive KRW 554,400 (including value-added tax) from February 2003. The advertisement was published around that time.
B. On August 27, 2008, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the outstanding amount of KRW 504,400 (hereinafter “the advertising price of this case”) (Seoul Western District Court 2008Gau168124) and received a recommendation order on August 27, 2008, stating that “the defendant shall pay to the non-party company 504,400 won with 6% per annum from March 1, 2003 to October 18, 2008, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.” The above decision was finalized on November 4, 2008.
C. On December 3, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred the instant advertising price claim to the Plaintiff. On June 22, 2015, Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the said transfer.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the transferee of the advertising price claim of this case, 504,40 won and 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from March 1, 2003 to October 18, 2008; Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment; Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); and damages for delay calculated at the respective rate of 20% per annum as stipulated under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concern
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription period of the claim established by the pertinent decision on performance recommendation. As such, the Plaintiff is a re-instigation for interruption of extinctive prescription.