beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: 30,032,198 won and 30,000,000 won among them, from September 16, 2006 to June 29, 2007
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. 1 The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for a loan claim with the Daegu District Court Western Branch on March 31, 2010 to the Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall pay 30,032,198 won and 30,000,000 won per annum from September 16, 2006 to June 29, 2007; and 30% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;
B. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B.
Of the money stated in paragraph (1), 10,000,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from December 8, 2009 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) was sentenced to a judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment was finalized on May 11, 2010. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim established by the said final judgment (hereinafter “claim of this case”).
On March 5, 2020, the instant payment order was filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the lawsuit of this case was filed for the interruption of the extinctive prescription period of March 5, 2020 with respect to the claim of this case for the ten-year extinctive prescription period from the date of determination, and barring any special circumstance, there is a benefit in the lawsuit. Barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 40% per annum from September 16, 2006 to June 29, 2007, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10,00,000,000 among the above money, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 8, 2009 to the date of full payment.
Defendant B was served with the original copy of the instant payment order and became aware of the existence of the instant judgment, and in fact, asserted that there was no money borrowed from the Plaintiff.
The judgment of this case against the defendant B.