beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.04.26 2018가합100563

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from October 13, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number), the Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Eul, and C with the Seoul Western District Court, and the above court rendered the judgment on Nov. 5, 2007, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on Dec. 19, 2007 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007Da40416) and ② the Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above judgment claim (hereinafter "claim of this case") to the plaintiff on Sept. 25, 2014 pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation. Around that time, it is recognized that the court notified the defendant, who is the principal debtor of the claim of this case, of the assignment of the above claim.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 500,000,000, which is part of the principal amount of the instant claim that was unpaid, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from October 13, 2017 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant set up a defense to the effect that most of the above amount of indemnity was repaid through an auction at the Suwon District Court around 1994 and only the interest and delay damages were not paid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that since the representative liquidator D received immunity from the Chuncheon District Court 2006Hadan1908 (Declaration of Bankruptcy) and 2006Ma2195 (Immunity), he/she cannot comply with the plaintiff's request.

However, since D was declared bankrupt and granted immunity, it is not exempt from the defendant's obligation, the defendant's defense is also without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.