구상금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 40,023,205 and KRW 38,894,334 from March 19, 2003 to January 208.
1. In full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the facts in the annexed sheet can be acknowledged and there is no counter-proof.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the subrogated payment, the amount of damages for finalized delay, and the amount of damages for substitute payment (1,128.857 won for substitute payment of KRW 38,894,34), and the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 38,894,334 of the amount of damages for delay of determination of the amount of subrogated payment, 17% per annum from March 19, 2003 to January 7, 2008, and 17% per annum from the following day to January 7, 2008, as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., as to Defendant B, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, until April 27, 2018; and as to Defendant A, 20% per annum from May 25, 2018 to the date of repayment; and 15% per annum per annum.
As to this, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) asserts that the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is dissolved on December 2, 2007 pursuant to Article 520(1) and (4) of the Commercial Act and the liquidation is completed on December 3, 2010, and thus, it cannot comply with the instant claim. However, even if a company is dissolved under Article 520-2(1) through (4) of the Commercial Act and its liquidation is deemed to have been completed, if liquidation is necessary in reality as the legal relationship remains, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of the claim and have the ability to be a party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968). The above assertion is rejected as it is without merit.
Although the defendant company also asserts that the bankruptcy and immunity has become final and conclusive against the representative liquidator of the defendant company, it is clear that the claim in this case is not a claim against the representative liquidator of the defendant company against the defendant company, but a claim against the defendant company, and therefore, the above argument is justified.