beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 81,434,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from September 20, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the application;
(Provided, That the “creditor” and “debtor” shall be deemed to be the “Plaintiff” and “Defendant”, respectively. (b)
Service by publication: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D
A. The Plaintiff supplied goods to Defendant D from around 2006 to around 2010. Since the price of the goods remains 81,434,000 won, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 81,434,00 and the damages for delay thereof. Accordingly, Defendant D asserted that the said claim for the payment of goods has expired by the three-year extinctive prescription.
B. There are claim amounting to KRW 81,434,00 against Defendant D of the Plaintiff’s household work.
Even if the above claim for the price of goods is applied to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years for the products and goods sold by the merchant. Since it is apparent in the record that the application for the payment order of this case was filed on May 1, 2015 after three years from the expiration date of the claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff, the claim for the price of goods was extinguished by the extinctive prescription.
Therefore, the defendant D's above defense is justified.
As to this, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff. From August 12, 2012, Defendant C prepared a promise (Evidence A 1) stating that the said KRW 81,434,00,000 per share shall be paid to the Plaintiff in installments after August 12, 2012, thereby approving the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have occurred, the cause for interrupting the extinctive prescription of Defendant D’s obligation to the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have occurred. However, in a joint and several obligation, the cause for interrupting the extinctive prescription, which is the approval of the obligation by one debtor, does not affect the other debtor, and thus, the cause for interrupting the extinctive prescription of the said obligation shall not affect the other debtor.