logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가합527744
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 410,000,000 and for this, KRW 30% per annum from March 28, 2007 to October 18, 2007.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap48917 seeking the payment of loans against the Defendants.

B. On June 4, 2008, the above court rendered a judgment that "The plaintiff shall pay 30% interest per annum from March 28, 2007 to October 18, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and the defendant C shall jointly and severally pay 216,00,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from August 30, 2007 to the day of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 410,00,000 won, Defendant B is obligated to pay 30% interest per annum from March 28, 2007 to October 18, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay 216,00,000 won and interest per annum from August 30, 2007 to the day of full payment.

In addition, since the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription is recognized.

As to this, Defendant C asserts to the effect that he did not have been served with the complaint, brief, and judgment of the above final and conclusive judgment, and that he did not have any joint and several sureties which is the cause of debt burden.

However, in this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above final judgment has lost its validity due to the cancellation through a retrial (in other words, Defendant C appears to have been directly served or to have been served by the principal on the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, and notice of the date of sentencing in the above final judgment) and Defendant C’s family.

arrow