logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.24 2014가단5239351
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Defendant A, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, bears the following obligations from the NAFFFFFFFFFFF, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to the NAFFFFFFFFFF, among the above obligations, and the Plaintiff legally acquired the claims against the Defendants from the said financial institution. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to perform the said obligation to the Plaintiff.

C A D E

2. Summary of the defendants' assertion

A. Although Defendant A received the above loans from the above financial institutions, the maturity date of the above loans to the NAFFFF is October 27, 2003, and the maturity date of the obligations to the NAFFFF is August 16, 2003.

Therefore, the above loans have expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription (five years).

B. Defendant B did not have joint and several sureties’s debt against Defendant A, and even if there were joint and several sureties, the extinctive prescription has expired.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments by Defendant A 4 and 6, Defendant A’s maturity of Defendant A’s debt to the Seoul High Military Cooperative on April 22, 199 (or April 22, 2004 at the latest). The maturity date for the debt to the High Military Cooperative is August 16, 2003. The instant lawsuit was received by this court on August 22, 2014 at the expiration of five years from the day following the said maturity date.

Therefore, each of the above loans owed by Defendant A became extinct upon the completion of extinctive prescription.

B. The record of the evidence submitted in the instant case by Defendant B is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B guaranteed the obligation of Defendant B to Defendant A to the Agricultural Cooperative, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, even if Defendant B guaranteed the above obligation, the principal obligation became extinct due to the completion of extinctive prescription as seen earlier.

4. Conclusion

arrow