beta
Text
1. The extent of the property inherited from the deceased J shall not exceed the extent of the property:
A. Defendant A shall be 19,496,075 won and the above amount.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the claim shall be as specified in attached Form of the facts;
(Provided, That the creditor shall be deemed to be the plaintiff). 2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, Defendant A, the denial of the deceased J, within the scope of property inherited from the deceased J, has the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff 19,496,075 won (i.e., KRW 123,475,139 x 3/19 x 3/19 x 56,813,773 x 3/19 x 3/19 x 12,97,383 won (=123,475,139 x 2/139 x 2/19 x 2/19 x 5,980,56,7813 x 2/1373 x 2/19 x 2/19 x 2/19) as damages for delay on the part of the above money from the date of the agreement to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was extinguished upon the lapse of five-year commercial extinctive prescription.
The purpose of the business operated by an agricultural cooperative is to provide the maximum services that are not discriminated against for its members and do not aim at profit-making. Thus, even if a cooperative provides loans to its members as part of its business and receives interest or overdue interest in accordance with the prescribed interest rate, it cannot be regarded as a merchant of the cooperative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53292, Feb. 11, 2000). The claim for loans to its members against an agricultural cooperative shall be subject to the ten-year extinctive prescription under Article 162 of the Civil Act, not only the five-year prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act, but also the ten-year prescription period of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity by subrogation.
Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on March 5, 2018, before the lapse of 10 years from May 29, 2009, which was the date of subrogation, is apparent in the record, and the said assertion by the Defendants is rejected.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.