logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.07.04 2017가단205907
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 30,500,000 won to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from July 1, 1994 to December 12, 1995.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against Gap and the defendant for the payment of indemnity amount under the Changwon District Court 2005da5034, Nov. 21, 2006, and rendered a judgment of 17% per annum from December 5, 1994 to the day of full payment of the amount of KRW 31,470,494 and its amount of KRW 30,500,000 among the above 31,470,494 and its amount of KRW 6% per annum from July 1, 1994 to December 12, 195, and the amount of KRW 31,540 to the defendant with the interest of 30,500,000 per annum and KRW 10,500 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment of the amount to be paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,500,000 won with 6% interest per annum from July 1, 1994 to December 12, 1995, and 17% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. As to this, the defendant asserts that the claims acquired by the plaintiff were extinguished after the completion of prescription.

In light of the foregoing, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years even for short-term extinctive prescription (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). The Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the amount of indemnity against the Defendant and received a judgment of acceptance by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund. The facts established on December 12, 2006 are as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2016, which was ten years after the said lawsuit was filed. As such, the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of indemnity was interrupted by the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow