beta
Text
1. Defendant B and the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant A, as to KRW 355,876,301 and KRW 83,36,856 out of the total amount, from June 10, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 12, 1997, Cho Ho Bank Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 100 million to Defendant A on December 12, 1997 at a rate of 25% per annum on the expiration date of the lending period, and C and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of Defendant A.
B. On June 30, 2001, the above bank transferred the above loans to a limited liability company specializing in C&C (hereinafter “the claim in this case”). The above limited liability company filed a lawsuit against the Defendants and C as Seoul District Court Decision 2003Kadan189585 (hereinafter “the lawsuit”), and the above court rendered on October 14, 2003, “the defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff an amount equal to 83,336,856 won and the amount equivalent to 19% per annum from July 13, 198 to the full payment date.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 192.
C. Around October 6, 2009, the foregoing limited liability company transferred the instant claim to C&B Investment Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&B Investment”), and notified the Defendants of the fact of transferring the instant claim on or around April 22, 2010, C&B investment transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on June 21, 2013, and the Plaintiff to whom the authority to notify the assignment of the claim was delegated, notified the Defendant A of the fact of transferring the claim on or around June 23, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including virtual numbers), each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. According to the above facts, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 355,876,301 and KRW 83,336,856 of the principal and interest of the instant claim, within the scope of the principal and interest of the instant claim, unless there are special circumstances.
B. Defendant A’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired. As such, Defendant A’s assertion that the instant claim had been extinguished, the statute of limitations suspended due to a judicial claim is newly undertaken from the time the relevant judgment became final and conclusive, and is based on a judgment.