beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 as well as 14% per annum from November 16, 2004 to February 15, 2005, and on February 2, 2005.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Based on a credit guarantee agreement between the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund and B, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is a joint guarantor of the credit guarantee agreement between B and B, with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Da347659, and on April 28, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment that "B and the Defendant jointly and severally paid to the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund 505,206,602 won and 505,206,303 interest rate of 14% per annum from November 16, 2004 to February 15, 2005; 16% per annum from the following day to April 2, 2010; and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2010."
B. After that, around September 29, 2016, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the claim for reimbursement established by the said judgment to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim at that time.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to acquire the instant bonds and file the instant lawsuit for the extension of the extinctive prescription, and to pay 500,000,000 and 14% per annum from November 16, 2004 to February 15, 2005, 16% per annum from February 16, 2005 to April 2, 2010, 200% per annum from April 3, 2010 to September 30, 2015, 20% per annum from April 3, 2010 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to May 31, 2019, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, the defendant argued that the defendant's claim in this case occurred by joint and several sureties at the time when the former representative director was operated. Since the representative director was changed thereafter, the defendant's claim in this case is not responsible. Thus, the defendant's name was changed merely because