beta
Text
1. The defendant is jointly and severally with Nonparty D (E), F (G) and H Co., Ltd. 462,295,032 and 189,35,404 won among them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 16, 2013, the IF lent KRW 1,00,00,000 to H Co., Ltd. with the interest rate fixed on August 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”), which was extended by August 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant loan”), Nonparty D, F, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan.
B. On April 17, 2014, H, a company, in arrears, caused a cause for the loss of the benefit of time under the credit transaction terms and conditions.
Since then, on November 13, 2018, I transferred to the Plaintiff the instant loans and the Defendant’s joint and several liability claims, and notified the Defendant, etc. thereof.
C. As of January 21, 2019, the instant loan and its delay damages are KRW 462,295,032 (principal KRW 189,35,404). The agreed delay damages rate is KRW 14.5% per annum.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 462,295,032 won and the principal of 189,35,404 won from January 22, 2019 to February 7, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 14.5% per annum under the agreement and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the joint and several surety debt has expired.
However, as seen earlier, as to the instant loan and the joint and several liability therefor, the extinctive prescription takes place on April 17, 2014, which was prior to the maturity of the loan, due to the occurrence of a cause of loss of interest during the period. It is evident that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 22, 2019, which was five years after the maturity of the said loan.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.