Plaintiff

Defendant

December 3, 2009

Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Gadan34308 Decided May 1, 2009

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 76,605,50 won with 5% interest per annum from September 19, 1992 to August 7, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of arguments as a result of the plaintiff's examination in the first instance court, and the following facts may be found: Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 13, 14, 15-1 through 4, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 24:

A. In around 1991, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff, one of the victims, as agreed money, when Nonparty 3 was committed in fraud.

B. On December 18, 191, the Plaintiff submitted a written agreement with Nonparty 3 to the prosecution that the Defendant, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2 submitted it to the prosecution. On the same day, the Defendant, the Plaintiff as the issuer, and the Plaintiff as the addressee, the face value of KRW 80,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and the date of September 18, 1992, after the issuer delayed the payment of the said promissorysory note, a notarial deed

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80 million, which is equivalent to the face value of the Promissory Notes, by September 18, 1992, which is the due date of the said Promissory Notes.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 76,605,50 won after deducting 3,394,500 won from the person who was paid the payment of the contract amount of KRW 80,000,000, and for this reason, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 19, 1992 to August 7, 2008, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from September 19, 1992, and 20% 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.

3. The defendant's defense and the plaintiff's defense

A. Since the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim does not have any obligation to repay it any longer after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the instant claim, it is apparent in the record that the maturity date of the instant claim was September 18, 1992, and that the instant claim was filed on August 1, 2008, which was ten years after the instant lawsuit was filed, and thus, the instant claim had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff, on October 21, 1996 and February 11, 1999, received a total of KRW 3,394,500 from the Defendant on the basis of the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, and thus, re-appealed that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim was interrupted at that time.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence 2, Nos. 7 through 11, and No. 19 through 24, and the fact-finding and commission to the representative execution officer of the Seoul Central District Court Office at the first instance court for the delivery of documents, the following circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff's title of a promissory note, and the debtor was paid KRW 1,658,00 on February 11, 199. Although the record of the above compulsory execution case was destroyed as the preservation period and the record of the above compulsory execution, the defendant's address at the time of the above compulsory execution was "Seoul (hereinafter 1 omitted)" and the address of the defendant 2 at the time of the above compulsory execution is presumed to have run as 90 days against the defendant's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's address at the time of the above compulsory execution (see, e.g., Seoul (hereinafter 201 omitted). The defendant's address at the time of the above compulsory execution is presumed to have run for the above non-party 1's address.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling it and ordering the defendant to pay the above amount of recognition.

Judges Seo-soon (Presiding Judge)

1) However, in the case of compulsory execution on October 21, 1996, the debtor is only a non-party 2.