beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 76,400,000, and 20% per annum from December 5, 2009 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
2. Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which hold a judgment without holding any pleadings.
3. The Plaintiff partially dismissed filed an application against the Defendants for a payment order claiming payment of loans of KRW 76,400,000 and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day when the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The original payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was delivered to the Defendants on November 20, 209, respectively, but the Defendants were served on November 20, 2009. However, the fact that the Defendants failed to file an objection and confirmed on December 5, 2009 is apparent in the record.
With respect to the interest rate on delay damages, the Plaintiff asserts the rate of 20% per annum, which is the interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”) at the time of the issuance of the instant payment order, from December 5, 2009 to the date of full payment.
However, since the above payment order does not recognize res judicata effect, the court should calculate damages for delay without binding force.
According to Article 3(1) main sentence of Article 3(1) of the amended Litigation Promotion Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015; effective October 1, 2015; partially amended by Presidential Decree No. 29678, May 21, 2019; effective June 1, 2019); and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the said Act, the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the said Act is 20% per annum until September 30, 2015; and 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to May 31, 2019; and each part of the Plaintiff’s claims for damages for delay exceeding the aforementioned interest rate is groundless.