logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015가단47935
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 21,054,804 won and 6% per annum from May 31, 2004 to October 5, 2005.

Reasons

1. On September 1, 2005, the Plaintiff received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the court of this case on September 1, 2005, stating that “The Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff KRW 21,054,804 and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from May 31, 2004 to the service date of the payment order, and interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The instant payment order was served on the Defendants on September 20, 205, and the fact that it was finalized on October 5, 2005 does not conflict between the parties.

As the Plaintiff applied for the payment order on October 2, 2015 for the extension of the prescription period of the instant payment order, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 21,054,804 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from May 31, 2004 to October 5, 2005, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s claim has expired since the Plaintiff applied for the payment order ten years after the issuance of the instant payment order on September 1, 2005.

Even where the period of extinctive prescription of claims established by a judgment falls under the short term, such extinctive prescription shall be ten years.

(Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the instant payment order became final and conclusive on October 5, 2005, and the Plaintiff applied for payment order on October 2, 2015, in which ten years have not passed since the Plaintiff applied for payment order on October 2, 2015, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow