구상금
1. Within the scope of the property inherited from the network D to the Plaintiff
A. Defendant C: (a) KRW 47,426,525; and (b) KRW 21.
1. The facts as to the cause of the claim after the change in the attached Form of judgment as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from June 21, 2019 to the Plaintiff for KRW 54,76,863 and KRW 24,39,075, respectively, starting from June 21, 2019; ② KRW 191,123,419; KRW 84,038,057; ② Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from June 21, 2019 to KRW 21,910; KRW 745, KRW 9,735,630, KRW 249,630, KRW 630, KRW 165,2019; ② Defendant C shall be paid damages for delay delay from June 21, 21,201, and KRW 164.
(1) (2) In the case of Defendant C’s obligation, as the joint and several surety of the network, is not the obligation inherited from the network D, and thus, Defendant C’s responsibility is not limited to the scope of the property inherited from the network D. However, the Plaintiff filed a claim by limiting the responsibility of Defendant C to the scope of the property inherited from the network D, and thus, the scope of the responsibility is limited to the scope of the property inherited from the network D upon the request of the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to the defendants' defense of the expiration of the statute of limitations
A. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2019 with respect to the claim for indemnity arising from the subrogation on February 27, 2009, and it is apparent that it is the calendar after the lapse of 10 years from February 27, 2009.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity incurred by subrogation on February 27, 2009 shall be deemed to have expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
With regard to this, the report by the Defendants on the recognition of the limited amount of claims constitutes the acceptance of obligations and thereby, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity.