beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 14, 1992, a foreign exchange credit card company loaned 5 million won to B, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the above loan.
B. The above bonds were transferred to the Busan 2 Savings Bank via a limited liability company specializing in the Estegypted Asset-Backed Securitization.
C. Busan2 Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against B and Defendant A with Suwon District Court 2005Gaso23193, which became final and conclusive on August 30, 2005, and on December 7, 2005, the judgment of "the defendant (B) paid 4,766,663 won to the plaintiff(s) and 20% interest per annum from November 25, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2005.
The Busan District Court was declared bankrupt on March 7, 2012 by Busan District Court 2012Hahap1, and the plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.
E. The balance of the principal and interest of loans is KRW 20,334,354 as of December 2, 2015 (the principal is KRW 4,766,664 as of December 2, 2015).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, each of the facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages from December 3, 2015, which is the day following the base date for calculation, with respect to KRW 20,334,354 in the balance of the principal and interest of loan and KRW 4,766,63 in its principal, barring any special circumstance.
(Plaintiff asserts that the base date for calculation was February 1, 2013, and sought damages for delay from that time. However, as seen earlier, the base date for calculation was December 2, 2015, and thus, the part of the claim for damages for delay corresponding to the previous period is rejected).
(1) The defendant's assertion that the statute of limitations has expired since the lawsuit of this case was filed after 10 years from August 30, 2005 when the decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive.