매매대금
1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 and the whole purport of pleadings:
On June 19, 2009, the Plaintiff sold D and 7 parcels (hereinafter “instant land”) to C Co., Ltd. in the purchase price of KRW 1,070,000,000 (the Plaintiff agreed to pay simultaneously with the contract).
B. The representative of C is a company director E, and in fact, F, the father of E, operated the company.
C was merged with the Defendant on September 5, 2012.
C. C Co., Ltd. paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,010,000,000, out of the purchase price of the instant land.
On September 28, 2009, F prepared a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff with respect to KRW 60,000,000 of the remaining purchase and sale price of the instant land under the name of C Co., Ltd., and on January 15, 2010, F drafted a letter of commitment to pay KRW 60,000,000 as a proxy of C, to the Plaintiff by March 15, 2010.
In addition, on March 21, 2012, F drafted to the Plaintiff, G, and H a certificate of loan with the purport to pay KRW 60,000,000 to the above remaining purchase and sale by June 30, 2012 in the name of C.
(1) The Plaintiff and G respectively have a duty to pay KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff and G, and to H 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
3. Judgment on the defense
A. 1) Determination on the grounds of extinctive prescription defense 1) The Defendant’s claim for the purchase-price of the Plaintiff was completed since the lapse of five years from June 19, 2009, the due date for payment. 2) The judgment on the grounds of extinctive prescription - not only a claim arising from an act that is a commercial activity against both parties, but also a claim arising from an act that constitutes a commercial activity only for one of the parties.