Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
On December 12, 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the return of deposit in this court 2007Gahap1718, and the judgment of "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,010,471,220 won and interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from November 25, 2006 to February 7, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." Accordingly, the defendant appealed as the Busan High Court 2008Na2364 and withdrawn the appeal and became final and conclusive on January 17, 2008.
(hereinafter “Related Judgment.” On September 22, 2008, the Defendant agreed to pay the interest accrued until then by October 31, 2008, KRW 340,248,068, when paying the principal of the above judgment.
(hereinafter “instant agreement”). [This case’s agreement’s ground for recognition] does not dispute, each entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 340,249,068 as stipulated in the instant agreement for the amount of KRW 340,00,249,068, which was due and payable after October 31, 2008, for which the plaintiff sought from November 4, 201 to March 2017.
The Defendant’s legal interest or delay damages on the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription are subordinate rights derived from a certain proportion corresponding thereto, on the premise of the existence of the principal, which is the principal claim. Where part of the principal of a monetary claim has been repaid and the extinctive prescription has been completed for the remainder of the principal, it is possible to distinguish the principal and the part extinguished due to the nature of the monetary claim, which is a divisible claim, from the principal due to the completion of the extinctive prescription. In this case, interest or delay damages on the principal can be divided into the principal and the part extinguished due to the repayment and the principal extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription. As such