1. The defendant, within the limit of KRW 10 billion, shall not exceed KRW 173,94,520 and KRW 50 million among the plaintiff.
On December 15, 2004, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Kahap73646 Decided December 15, 2004 (hereinafter “former Decision”) was sentenced to the Defendant, and the above decision was finalized on January 12, 2015.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant claim for judgment”). The text of the above judgment is as follows.
Plaintiff, 1) Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).
(2) The defendant shall pay 20,711,101,226 won and 5,637,890,273 won among them at the rate of 19% per annum from August 14, 2004 to October 23, 2004; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 3) the non-party C Co., Ltd. and the defendant jointly and severally with the above money to the 10,000,000,000 won and 20% per annum from October 24, 2004 to the date of full payment.
On July 15, 2009, the Reorganization Bank Co., Ltd. transferred each of the instant judgment claim to the Plaintiff on March 15, 201, to the Bath Capital Co., Ltd., and to the Bath Capital Asset Management Co., Ltd. on March 30, 201, to the Hath Capital Asset Management Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Hath Capital Asset Management Co., Ltd., to the mentor Annthon Loan Co., Ltd. on May 2, 2012, to the mentor Annthon Loan Co., Ltd., Ltd, and to the Defendant on March 15, 2013.
[Recognition Facts] The plaintiff asserts the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole argument against the defendant, that the plaintiff claims damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the sum of 50 million won, part of the principal of the judgment bond of this case, and 128,601,370 won (the amount of delayed interest rate of 19% per annum from April 11, 1991 to October 23, 2004 before the initial date of the judgment of this case) of 178,601,370 won, and 50 million won, of the principal, from October 24, 2004 to the date of full payment.
However, according to the statement of Gap evidence No. 3, the defendant.