beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 50,000,000 and for this, KRW 12% per annum from August 1, 2010 to July 19, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff paid 150,000,000 won to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") on May 15, 2008 (hereinafter "D") from the date of borrowing to the date of repayment (=6,000,000 won), and the due date of repayment on June 30, 2008 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") respectively, and the defendant Eul guaranteed the above debt of D to the plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant B, a joint and several surety of the instant loan, is liable to pay KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay as requested by the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B’s joint and several liability for the instant loan has expired due to the expiration of the five-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated in the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the maturity period for the instant loan claim is the same as that of June 30, 2008, and if the instant claim is not exercised for five (5) years since it was a claim arising from a commercial activity, the extinctive prescription is completed. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on June 15, 2018, it was extremely apparent that five (5) years have elapsed since the said payment period has lapsed. Accordingly, the instant loan claim was extinguished by the extinctive prescription period. Accordingly, Defendant B’s above assertion is reasonable, and the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. 2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts as follows.
① As to the instant loan, Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff, Defendant C concurrently assumed the instant loan obligation. In light of the relationship between D and Defendant C, the Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the instant loan obligation on the ground that there exists a subjective joint relationship in view of the relationship between D and Defendant C.
② Defendant C received a claim from the Plaintiff for the performance of the instant loan from January 208 to August 2014, and partly repaid interest to the Plaintiff.