beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 119,868,943 and the amount of KRW 13,471,122 from March 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the instant claim are either not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum pursuant to the agreement for KRW 18%, 50,000,00 per annum from March 24, 2016 to the date of full payment, as to KRW 17.90 per annum pursuant to the agreement, with respect to KRW 119,868,943 in total, and KRW 13,471,122 in total, to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for loans by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation from March 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the defendant asserted that the obligation of the loan of this case was fully repaid through the voluntary auction procedure on the building owned by the defendant and provided as security, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. In addition, the Defendant asserted that the claim of this case that the Plaintiff acquired was extinguished by the completion of extinctive prescription, but in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the aforementioned evidence, the fact that the auction procedure of real estate auction was initiated by Gwangju District Court B regarding the real estate owned by the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 376,336,503 in the distribution procedure of the said voluntary auction case on April 4, 2011 and received KRW 376,336,503 in the said voluntary auction procedure, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case transferred
However, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on March 30, 2016, before the ten-year extinctive prescription period from April 201, where the above distribution schedule became final and conclusive, and accordingly, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.