beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the extinctive prescription of Defendant C’s credit against Defendant C was interrupted by the debt approval of D; and (b) damages for delay incurred from March 15, 200 with respect to the loan was not “claim for a period of less than one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal or did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the approval of debts, delay of performance and delay damages, pleading principle, extinctive prescription, etc
2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal
A. As to the assertion on the nature of the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name, the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant B’s name on each of the instant real estate was made by means of transfer for security in order to secure Defendant C’s loan claims against Defendant C, along with the registration of
Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
B. On March 26, 1998, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that D’s loans to Defendant C, including the existing loan amount of KRW 120 million, at the time when D had registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage under the name of Defendant C with respect to each of the instant real estate on March 26, 1998, including KRW 50 million.
In light of the record, the lower court’s determination exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.