The period of prescription after the due date of bank loans

The funds in this case are clear that it is the damages for delay after the due date for the loans that the Plaintiff bank engaged in financial transactions for the business is the damages for delay after the due date for such loans are due for the business activities, and it cannot be deemed the interest claim equivalent to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act. The short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act is not applicable thereto, and Article 64

Articles 163 and 766 of the Civil Act, Article 64 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 79Da1453 decided Nov. 13, 1979 (Kakad 12272; 27(3) No. 64(2)86 of the Commercial Act, Court Gazette 623No. 12344 decided Nov. 13, 1979

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Dong Mine Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. and 2 others

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap3364) in the first instance trial

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 46,907,090 won to the Plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1(어음거래약정서), 동호증의 2 내지 6(각 약속어음), 동호증의 7,8(각 할인어음원장), 동 제2호증의 1(당좌계정차월약정서), 동호증의 2(원장), 동 제3호증(경락대금교부표), 동 제4호증(부기문), 동 제5호증(채무증명원, 일부기재중 뒤에 배척하는 부분 제외)의 각 기재에 원심증인 최종민의 증언을 모두어 보면, (1) 원고은행이 1971.3.9. 피고 김이배, 동 이종순의 연대보증하에 피고 동광화학공업주식회사(이하 피고회사라 약칭한다)와 어음거래약정을 체결하고 그 이래 별지대출금 목록기재와 같이 전후 5회에 걸쳐 피고회사에게 합계 금 110,000,000원을 대여한 사실, 원고은행이 별지 대출금 목록기재와 같은 그 각 변제기에 이르러 피고등으로부터 위 대출금의 이자만 지급받은 채로 있다가 그 담보부동산을 임의경매에 부쳐 1973.11.23.에 이르러 그 경락대금에서 위 대출원금 전액 및 이에 대한 1972.3.31.까지의 연체이자를 배당받아 변제에 충당함으로써 결국 원고은행이 아직도 지급받지 못한 금원은 위 대출원금 110,000,000원에 대한 1972.4.2.부터 1972.8.2.까지 연 3할 1푼 2리의 비율에 의한 연체이자 금 11,659,397원(110,000,000원x31.2/100x124/365 원고 청구에 따라 원미만 버림)과 1972.8.3.부터 1973.11.23.까지 연 2할 5푼의 비율에 의한 연제이자 금 36,013,698원(110,000,000원x25/100x478/365원미만 버림)의 합계 금 47,673,095원(11,659,397원+36,013,698원)이 되는 사실, (2) 원고은행이 1971.6.9. 피고 김이배, 동 이종순의 연대보증하에 피고회사와 당좌계정 차월약정을 체결하고 그 대출 한도액을 금 145,000,000원, 약정기한을 1972.3.21. 연체이자율을 연 3할 6푼 5리로 정하고 그 이래 당좌거래를 계속하여 왔는 바, 1972.3.31. 현재 피고회사의 차월잔액이 금 44,985,675원에 달하는 사실, 원고가 같은날 까지의 약정이자만 지급받은 채로 있다가 1973.7.31.에 이르러 대출원금중 금 3,535,812원과 위 대출금 전액에 대한 1972.8.9.까지의 연체이자전액을 변제받고 다시 1973.11.23.에 이르러 그 담보부동산의 경락대금에서 대출원금중 41,449,863원을 배당받아 변제에 충당함으로써 위 대출원금 전액(3,535,812원+41,449,863원=44,985,675원)은 회수하였으나 이에 대한 1972.8.10. 이후의 연체이자가 아직까지 미회수로 남아 있는 바, 그 액수는 위 대출원금 44,985,675원에 대한 1972.8.10.부터 1973.7.31.까지의 연 2할 5푼의 비율에 의한 연체이자 금 10,969,109원(44,985,675원x25/100x356/365원 미만 버림)과 대출원금 41,449,863원에 대한 1973.8.1.부터 1973.11.23.까지의 같은 이율에 의한 연체이자 금 3,264,886원(41,449,863원x25/100x115/365원미만 버림)의 합계 금 14,233,995원(10,969,109원+3,264,886원)이 되는 사실, 따라서 위 (1),(2)항의 미회수 지연이자는 합계 금 61,907,090원(47,673,095원+14,233,995원)이 되는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 위 갑 제5호증의 일부기재(단 위에서 믿는 부분 제외)는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니하고 달리 위 인정에 반하는 증거는 없다.

The Defendants’ legal representative, as the interest claim of the Plaintiff bank against the loan, was extinguished by the completion of the short-term extinctive prescription of 3 years under Article 163 subparag. 1 or 766(1) of the Civil Act commencing from December 4, 1973. The Plaintiff’s legal representative’s claim constitutes five-year commercial prescription as a claim for late payment damages arising from the Plaintiff bank’s loan business activities. Since the statute of limitations has been interrupted on December 4, 1973 by the Defendant’s debt approval for 60 years, the statute of limitations period should run. Accordingly, the Defendants’ legal representative’ assertion that the statute of limitations defense against the above Defendant’s legal representative would not have been valid until 60 years have elapsed since the lapse of 7 years. According to the above facts, this case’s legal representative’s claim for late payment of dividends would not be deemed as constituting a tort under Article 163 subparag. 163 of the Civil Act’s statutory prescription period. This case’s legal representative’s claim for late payment of dividends would not be deemed as valid.

The Defendants’ legal representative had already registered the dissolution of December 24, 1974 and notified the creditors of a written public notice and written notice on the newspaper that the Defendant’s company excluded the creditors from the liquidation without filing a report on the transfer of claims, but the Plaintiff bank did not file a report thereon at the present stage of the liquidation. However, even if the completion of the liquidation is registered, the Plaintiff bank’s legal representative is not able to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it is at the present stage of the liquidation. However, according to the facts acknowledged above, even if there is a claim or an obligation relationship upon the registration of the completion of the liquidation, the liquidation is not completed (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968). According to the above facts, it is apparent that the Plaintiff bank had already received a dividend from the auction procedure for the secured real estate provided by the Defendant company in 1973, and thus, the Plaintiff bank’s legal representative cannot be excluded from the liquidation regardless of whether it reported the claim.

The defendants' legal representative, although the plaintiff bank had a separate claim against the defendant company as to the claim of this case, he asserted that the plaintiff acquired a successful bid at a voluntary auction on January 1, 1974 and offered a separate claim for the interest of 20,000,000 won in lieu of the plaintiff's claim for the interest of this case. However, since the testimony of the court below's witness was insufficient to acknowledge this, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise, the plaintiff bank rejected this defense or without merit.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,907,090,090, which is the sum of the remaining interest in arrears, in 61,907,090, which remains without payment to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this claim shall be accepted with reasonable grounds. Since the original judgment is just in conclusion with the party members, and the appeal by the defendants is unfair, the appeal by the defendants shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)