logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원의성지원 2015.10.28 2014가단3230
구상금
Text

1. The Defendants shall not exceed KRW 21,448,178, and KRW 9,115,337 among them, within the scope of property inherited from G to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, G received a loan of KRW 30,00,000 from Yangyang Nonghyup on June 1, 2001 by the term of June 1, 2004. On the same day, the plaintiff guaranteed G's obligation to pay the above loan to Yangyang Agricultural Co., Ltd.; the plaintiff paid 36,461,348 won on Nov. 29, 2004 due to G's failure to pay the above loan; and as of Nov. 18, 2014, the plaintiff paid 36,461,348 won on Nov. 29, 2004, the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement against G against the heir was 85,792,792,712 won (=36,461,348 won by subrogation, damages 49,331,364 won by subrogation).

According to the above facts, the Defendants, G’s successors, are obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay for the amount of KRW 85,792,712 and the subrogated principal of KRW 36,461,348 according to their respective inheritance shares.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. 1) Defendant A and B asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against G has expired by the statute of limitations. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff subrogated for the obligation of G on November 29, 2004 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2014, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 5, the plaintiff filed an application against G for payment order of the above indemnity amount as the Daegu District Court Branch of 2005Guj326, and the above court issued a payment order as of February 7, 2005 with the same contents as the above application purport and acknowledged the fact that the above payment order became final and conclusive on March 3, 2005. Thus, the plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is justified, and the defendant's above defense is without merit.

On the other hand, the above defendants' claims for reimbursement.

arrow