Whether a claim for interest in arrears under a guarantee insurance contract is subject to a short-term extinctive prescription;

The interest for arrears that a policyholder shall pay to an insurance company in accordance with a guarantee insurance contract for the payment of an installment for the search period is not an interest on the amount of insurance proceeds paid by the insurance company as a result of delay in the performance of the liability for reimbursement for the amount of insurance proceeds, but it does not constitute a claim for the payment of money or goods for a period of not more than one year as stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 163 of the Civil Act. Thus, the claim for payment cannot

Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Yong-il, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na96 delivered on March 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim for the interest in the instant case as the amount of reimbursement is, in case where the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, the principal debtor, paid the amount equivalent to the amount of the interest in arrears to the non-party company as a result of delayed payment of the amount of the interest in installments for the non-party company, the above non-party, in accordance with the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement, agreed to pay the above insurance money and the interest in arrears at the interest rate under the Korean Finance Corporation agreement from the date of payment to the date of full payment of the insurance money. Thus, in light of the purport of the purport, the Plaintiff did not actually pay the interest in arrears to the non-party company, so the Defendant did not have a duty to claim the amount equivalent to the interest in arrears to the Plaintiff, or the agreement on the interest in the said interest

In addition, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is examined in light of records. The interest for delay that the above non-party shall pay to the plaintiff pursuant to the guarantee insurance contract for the payment of the amount of the delayed payment of the plaintiff's insurance money, is not an interest on the damages incurred by the non-party due to delay in performing his claim for reimbursement of the amount of the plaintiff's insurance money, and it does not constitute a claim for the payment of money or goods for a period not exceeding one year under Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, and thus, the claim for payment cannot be deemed as the subject of short-term extinctive prescription. Further, the judgment of the court below that the judgment of the court below that the non-party cannot be concluded to have waived his claim for the interest for delay because the amount the plaintiff received from the above non-party was appropriated for the repayment of

In addition, the argument cited by the theory of lawsuit is nothing more than that of the court below's failure to judge at all, and therefore, it is not reasonable to punish it without any further necessity.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)