구상금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 135,719,120 won and the above 131,611,228 won among the above 135,719,120 won and the above 131,611,228 won from November 20, 2006.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. on July 18, 2007 against the defendant et al. on the claim for indemnity amount against the defendant et al. by the Seoul Central District Court 2007Da74353 and filed a lawsuit on July 18, 2007. "The defendant jointly and severally filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for indemnity amounting to 132,46,348 won and 131,611,228 won from November 206 to June 7, 2007, 15% per annum from the next day to June 7, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The plaintiff cannot recognize the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the previous suit.
2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 135,719,120 (i.e., the judgment amount of KRW 132,466,348 by subrogation of KRW 3,252,72) and 131,611,228 (i.e., 15% per annum from November 20, 2006 to June 7, 2007; and (ii) 20% per annum from the next day to August 18, 2017, the delivery date of the application for the payment order of this case, and damages for delay by 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant’s assertion is arguing to the effect that the representative liquidator is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, but the instant claim is not a claim against the Defendant Company and a claim against the representative liquidator of the Defendant Company is not a claim against the Defendant Company, and the immunity decision against the representative liquidator is not a defense for the instant claim seeking the Defendant Company’s obligations. Therefore, the aforementioned argument is without merit.
3. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.