구상금
1. The Defendant’s 63,687,838 won and its 62,468,228 won among the Plaintiff’s 63,68,838 won and the Plaintiff’s 62,468,228 won annually from September 29, 2005 to November 30, 2012.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In addition to the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 of evidence Nos. 1-2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the claim of indemnity against the defendant with Seoul Central District Court 2005Da308632, Dec. 23, 2005, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 63,687,838 won and 62,468,228 won with 15% per annum from September 28, 2005 to November 19, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The above judgment can be acknowledged as finalized on Nov. 14, 2006.
B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the foregoing final judgment. Barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 63,687,838 won under the above final judgment and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 29, 2005 to November 30, 2012, as the Plaintiff seeks from September 29, 2005 to August 31, 2012, 12% per annum from the next day to August 31, 2015, and from the next day to the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order in lieu of the original copy of the instant complaint, 8% per annum from the next day to December 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim has expired by prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s claim becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, and in this case ten years from the time the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 1665(1) of the Civil Act). The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 4, 2015, for which ten years have not passed since January 14, 2006 of the judgment became final and conclusive, is obvious.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.