beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,321,640 as well as 15% per annum from March 31, 2019 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a person who sells industrial electrical equipment or lighting fixtures with the trade name of C, supplied them to D (hereinafter “D”) but the outstanding claim amounting to KRW 55,621,640 as of December 31, 2004 was created.
B. On December 31, 2004, the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 55,621,640 to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,300,000 in total eight times from September 12, 201 to January 26, 2017, but did not receive the remainder of KRW 53,321,640.
C. The instant lawsuit was filed on February 21, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, etc., the Defendant, a guarantor, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a creditor, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 31, 2019 to May 31, 2019, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 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.
(F) From June 1, 2019, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings changed the statutory interest rate from 15% to 12%, and the defendant transferred the claim for construction price as payment in kind to the defendant.
Although there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the price of goods is unrefilled, it is alleged that the price of goods is unfilled.
Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that the period of prescription from December 31, 2004, even if the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the price claim for goods with three or more years of prescription, and that the ten-year prescription period has expired thereafter, and that the ten-year prescription period has expired. However, the Plaintiff’s claim was repaid at KRW 2,300,000 on eight occasions from September 12, 201 to January 26, 201, and the repayment after the expiration of the statute of limitations period is either waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription or partial repayment before the expiration of the statute of limitations period.