logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.29 2018나61194
양수금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is 69,126,933 won against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and 22,650 among them.

Reasons

1. On May 18, 1996, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) established and lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant at the interest rate of 14.5% per annum and at the interest rate of 19% per annum, and D guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to E.

E filed a lawsuit against the defendant and D with the Cheongju District Court 97Kadan18370 on September 24, 1997 against the defendant and D, and the judgment of winning the case on February 18, 1998 (hereinafter "the preceding judgment of this case") became final and conclusive on March 24, 1998.

E on November 4, 2004, transferred the above loan claims to A (hereinafter referred to as “A”).

A applied for a payment order against the defendant and D on January 29, 2008 for the extension of the extinctive prescription of the preceding judgment of this case, and on September 4, 2008, the judgment in favor of A was rendered in the lawsuit on the merits (this Court Decision 2008Da216154).

A on April 26, 2011, transferred the above loan claims to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

As of January 24, 2008, the above loan claims remain in KRW 22,650,695, and delay damages such as interest, etc., 46,476,238.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal and interest of 69,126,933 won (=22,650,000 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 19% per annum from January 25, 2008 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of 22,650,695 won, which is the following day of the above basic date, to the intervenors who received the above loan claims in succession (22,650,000 won).

3. The defendant's defense is proved that the five-year extinctive prescription of the above loan claim has expired.

However, the above loan claims were interrupted by the prior judgment of this case, and the period of prescription was ten years since the prior judgment of this case became final and conclusive. A, prior to March 24, 1998, prior to the lapse of ten years after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, January 29, 2008.

arrow