beta
Text
1. As to KRW 66,822,171 and KRW 28,135,139 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s annual interest is from December 15, 2016 to March 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. The facts identical to the reasons for the claim in the separate sheet of the judgment as to the grounds for the claim may be acknowledged either in dispute or in the evidence Nos. 1 to 6 by adding the whole purport of the pleading to
In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum totaling KRW 66,822,171 and the remainder totaling KRW 28,135,139 from December 15, 2016 to March 6, 2017, which is the delivery date of a complaint, 12% per annum under the agreement and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription
A. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff is a merchant, and thus the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement against the defendant is a commercial claim.
Since five years have passed since February 15, 2007, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity against the defendant was subrogated by the plaintiff, and the statute of limitations has expired.
B. Determination is that the Plaintiff shall serve as the maximum for its members and shall not engage in the business for profit or speculation (Article 5(1) and (3) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act). Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s financial transactions are included in the Plaintiff’s business, the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee against the Defendant cannot be deemed as a merchant under the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da53292, supra). The Plaintiff’s credit guarantee against the Defendant is for the purpose of facilitating the funding of funds needed for agriculture, forestry and fishery business by farmers and fishermen, etc. who lack security capacity as the managing agency of the Agricultural and Fishery Business Credit Guarantee Fund under the Agricultural and Fishery Business Credit Guarantee Act.
It is reasonable to regard the period of extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Defendant as ten years since the Civil Act is applied. It is recorded that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 26, 2016, before the lapse of ten years from February 15, 2007 when the subrogation in this case was made.