beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant on March 4, 1996.
B. On September 5, 1994, the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) concluded a microcredit insurance contract with the Defendant with the amount of insurance coverage amount of KRW 16,50,000 in order to secure its repayment when the Defendant received a loan from the dong Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the Defendant paid KRW 16,049,795 as insurance money to the Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. on March 22, 1996 when the insured event that did not repay the loan to the Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. occurred.
C. On May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claims and indemnity claims against the Defendant from Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims pursuant to Article 7 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.
As of March 31, 2005, the Defendant bears a total of KRW 52,871,721 in relation to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and Seoul Guarantee Insurance (= principal amount of KRW 20,528,782 in delay damages of KRW 32,342,939). As of March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff determines 17% per annum within the overdue interest rate set by each transfer financial institution as the overdue interest rate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 52,871,721 won and the principal amount of 20,528,782 won and delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment, barring special circumstances.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above claims occurred before 1995, and five years have passed thereafter, since the lawsuit of this case was filed on January 24, 2006, the extinctive prescription was completed.
Domins, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4.