Even if a company is deemed to have been dissolved and the liquidation thereof has been terminated pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if any legal relationship still remains, and in such a case, the director at the time of dissolution of the company shall be a liquidator as a matter of course in cases where other provisions exist in the articles of incorporation or a general meeting of shareholders does not appoint a liquidator separately, and only such liquidator shall be a representative of the company under liquidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27, 1994). According to the purport of the whole pleadings, according to the whole purport of pleadings, the above entry was cancelled by the representative director D, directors C, and E at the time when the defendant is deemed dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, but the above entry was respectively listed in the corporate register, and therefore, the above D is recognized to have been disqualified on October 29, 2013, and therefore, C or E shall be the representative of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's defense of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The grounds for the instant claim concerning the merits are the same as the entry in the grounds for the instant claim (Provided, That “creditor” shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff” and “debtor” shall be deemed to be “Defendant.” D’s heir, F, G, H, and I decided to recommend reconciliation). There was no dispute between the parties or according to the entry in the evidence No. 2, and the instant lawsuit is a benefit of lawsuit as it was instituted for the interruption of extinctive prescription of claims based on the final judgment.

Therefore, the defendant 1,346,355,058 won and 50,000 won among the plaintiff.