beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant's 66,00 won and its relation to the plaintiff from December 1, 2002 to September 17, 2008.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 17, 2002, the Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) posted an advertisement of “B” on the Korea Phone Board published by the Defendant and the Nonparty Company, and agreed to receive 66,000 won (including value-added tax) for the advertisement until November 2002. The advertisement was published around that time.
B. On September 24, 2008, the non-party company filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the above advertising price of KRW 666,00 (hereinafter “the advertising price of this case”) payable against the defendant (Seoul Western District Court 2008Gaso78948), and was sentenced on September 24, 2008 to “the defendant shall pay to the non-party company 66,000 won with 66% per annum from December 1, 2002 to September 17, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized on October 22, 2008.
C. On December 3, 2014, Nonparty Company transferred the instant advertising price claim to the Plaintiff. On June 22, 2015, Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the said transfer.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the transferee of the advertising price claim of this case, 66,000 won a year of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from December 1, 2002 to September 17, 2008; Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment; Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings; and Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) with delay damages calculated at the respective rate of 20% per annum.
3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the said final judgment, and thus, is a re-instigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription.