양수금
1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with the plaintiff 204,392,335 won and 197,748,272 won among them, from June 26, 1998 to the plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15812, Jun. 26, 1998>
The facts as to the cause of the claim (However, the “creditor” shall be “Plaintiff”, and the “debtor” shall be “Defendant”) shall be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 3.
Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition.
The defendant has completed the registration of the completion of liquidation with respect to himself, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is against a person who has no capacity to be a party to the lawsuit.
However, even if a registration for the completion of liquidation of a juristic person has been made, if it is not deemed that the liquidation has been completed, it shall be deemed that the juristic person has the capacity to be a party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da3408, Apr. 22, 1997). Even if the registration for the completion of liquidation was completed with respect to the defendant, as long as the lawsuit of this case seeking the payment of the acquisition money against the defendant is pending, the liquidation is not completed. Thus, it is reasonable to view that
The defendant's main defense of safety is without merit.
As to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant's claim of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation has already been completed at the time of filing the lawsuit in Seoul Central District Court 2009Da353401.
In the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim established by a final and conclusive judgment, disputing the existence of an obligation by asserting the grounds arising prior to the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment is impermissible as it goes against res judicata of the said final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008, Jul. 19, 2018). The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted as reasonable.