beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. For Defendant A: 104,856,831 won and 32,175,49 won among them:
B. Defendant B is Defendant A.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant A entered into a loan and credit card transaction agreement with each of the financial institutions listed below as listed below, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the loans Nos. 4 of which are listed below. Defendant A (B) failed to pay the loan obligations, credit card use charges, etc. as listed below.
3) The Plaintiff acquired loan claims on May 13, 2005 from a financial institution, which is the above loan holders, and notified the Defendant A of them around that time. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence A1 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, Defendant A is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum for KRW 40,411,291 of the above amount and KRW 11,687,532 of the above amount, jointly with Defendant A, to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and KRW 32,175,49 of the above amount. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from March 30, 2015 to the date of full payment.
As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant claim had expired five years after the lapse of the five-year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant A paid part of his/her obligation by June 4, 2010 through the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission, and that the statute of limitations has been interrupted. Thus, according to the evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff’s performance of his/her obligation by June 4, 2010 through the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission was recognized. Thus, the statute of limitations of the instant claim was interrupted, and since the instant lawsuit was filed on April 1, 2015, the Defendant’s assertion was without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.