beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.12.03 2020가합105813

양수금

Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 379,378,842 and KRW 379,126,209, among them, the year from August 21, 2009 to May 19, 2010.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the credit guarantee agreement between the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and the defendant, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant and others as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kadan11029, Jun. 29, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant and others jointly pay to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund 379,378,842 won and 379,126,209 won with 15% per annum from August 21, 2009 to May 19, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2010.

B. After that, around September 29, 2016, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the claim for reimbursement established by the said judgment to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff to whom the claim in this case was transferred the amount of KRW 379,378,842 as well as KRW 379,126,209 as the amount of KRW 15% per annum from August 21, 2009 to May 19, 2010, KRW 20% per annum from May 20, 2010 to May 31, 2019, and KRW 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserted to the effect that the right ability was extinguished by deeming the completion of liquidation on December 1, 2017. However, even a company that is dissolved and deemed to have been completed pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if the legal relationship remains and it is necessary to be arranged in reality, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of the above scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27, 1994). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit. In addition, the Defendant’s representative liquidator, B, who is the Defendant, is declared bankrupt.