(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.13 2016가단11541

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.13 2016가단11541

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,318,620 as well as 15% per annum from March 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5, and Gap evidence No. 6 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a contract for continuous supply of goods with Eul on Oct. 12, 200, and entered into a joint and several guarantee contract with the defendant who is a partner of Eul on the same day with Eul on Oct. 12, 200, and after the death of Eul on Dec. 12 of the same year, the plaintiff was liable for the purchase price of goods of KRW 49,318,620 against the plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 49,318,620 won as joint and several surety debt and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 1, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the extinctive prescription of the debt of the joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's joint and several sureties's contract should be calculated from November 6, 200, and ten years have elapsed since it is based on the premise that the extinctive prescription of the above joint and several sureties's contract should be completed. However, unless there is no separate agreement for the guarantee period, the extinctive prescription shall run from the

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant’s joint and several liability owed by the Defendant for the remainder of the extinctive prescription period is to run from the time of occurrence of each obligation for the purchase of goods due to an individual transaction, barring any special circumstance. The Defendant’s obligation for the purchase of goods due to a continuous contract is to run from June 30, 2015 to December 17, 2015.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff .

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나84346

-수원지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나70629

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.04.22 2019가단109641

-대법원 1994. 6. 28. 선고 93다49208 판결

-부산지방법원 2018.01.25 2016나12127