beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 144,071,732 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 11% per annum from April 29, 2014 to January 5, 2017.
Reasons
1. In full view of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 5, evidence set forth in subparagraphs 6-1 and 6-2, and the whole purport of the pleading, facts as to the cause of the claim can be acknowledged.
(4) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 14,071,732 won for indemnity and 11% per annum, which is the annual interest rate from April 29, 2014 to January 5, 2017, the next day of the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, 10% per annum from the next day to April 12, 2019, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and 10% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019), and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of the payment date.
(Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum even for the period after June 1, 2019. However, the argument regarding the portion exceeding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum according to the amendment of the above provision is without merit). 2. In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the reimbursement against the Defendant was extinguished by the extinctive prescription period.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for indemnity by subrogated to the Industrial Bank of Korea on April 28, 2014. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on April 4, 2019, prior to the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period, the extinctive prescription period for the claim for indemnity against the Defendant was interrupted.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.