beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 54,621,240 and KRW 53,897,70 among the plaintiff's KRW 54,621,240 shall be 15% per annum from October 13, 2008 to May 28, 2010.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 21, 2010, the non-party Korea Housing Finance Corporation filed a lawsuit against the defendant with Changwon District Court 2010da18327, and rendered a favorable judgment against the above court that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 54,621,240 won and 53,897,700 won with 15% per annum from October 13, 2008 to May 28, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(hereinafter “Prior Judgment”). B.
Korea Housing Finance Corporation 2018
8. 30. Around that time, pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, a prior judgment claim in this case was transferred to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant
C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of claims based on the preceding judgment.
【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the instant prior judgment the amount of KRW 54,621,240 and the amount of KRW 53,897,70 among them, 15% per annum from October 13, 2008 to May 28, 2010, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant asserts that the claim of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation is not liable for the arising out of a loan agreement that was concluded by misappropriation of the Defendant’s name. However, as long as the prior ruling becomes final and conclusive on the original claim and res judicata has occurred, the Defendant cannot make a decision different from the prior ruling on the claim
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.