beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.08.12 2019가단227109

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant is jointly and severally with Nonparty B as to KRW 172,596,787 and KRW 79,353,283 among them, from June 25, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 16, 2009, the Korea Export Insurance Corporation filed a lawsuit against the defendant, B, C, and D with Seoul Central District Court 2009Da7647, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant, B, C, and D shall jointly pay 81,891,80 won to the Korea Export Insurance Corporation and 81,111,840 won per annum from November 27, 2008 to March 8, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On December 22, 2017, the Korea Export Insurance Corporation transferred to the Plaintiff claims established by the above judgment (hereinafter “instant claims”), and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims at that time. On July 8, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), 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 jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 11% per annum from June 25, 2019 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff within the scope of the interest rate of KRW 172,596,787 and the interest rate of KRW 79,353,283 among the principal and interest of the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case with the non-party B, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion that the representative liquidator of the defendant is granted immunity and thus cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim. However, the claim of this case is not a claim against the defendant and the defendant's representative's claim is not a claim against the defendant, and the immunity decision against the representative individual does not affect the claim of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.