beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan as the Ulsan District Court Decision 2006Da25829, and the above court rendered a judgment on January 24, 2007 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from September 27, 2006 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2007.
B. Based on the above judgment amount, the Plaintiff participated in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate D with Jinwon District Court for the property owned by the Defendant, and received 6,401,997 won from the date of distribution on April 13, 2009.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above finding, the defendant's payment of KRW 50,00,00 and the above dividends of KRW 6,401,997 to the plaintiff as compensation for delayed payment from September 27, 2006 to May 18, 2007 is KRW 6,410,958 (=50,000,000 x 20 x 20% x 234/365, 97 x 6,401,97 x 8,961 (= 6,410,958 - 6,40,401,997) as compensation for delayed payment, and the remaining portion is not claimed by the plaintiff.
From May 19, 2007 to the date of full payment, 20% of the annual damages for delay set forth in the preceding judgment is liable to pay damages for delay. The lawsuit in this case is filed by a creditor who has an executory exemplification of the title of debt in the auction procedure for real estate in which the extinctive prescription is imminent is equivalent to the seizure under Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act, and the interruption of extinctive prescription for the claim related to demand for distribution takes effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25484, Feb. 26, 2002). The extinctive prescription of the judgment claim under the preceding judgment is interrupted by the plaintiff's participation in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate, and the distribution schedule is set from the date of distribution on April 13, 2009.