양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 373,259,002 and the amount of KRW 42,253,640 among them to October 16, 2015.
1. In addition to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff in the attached claim against the plaintiff is confirmed on February 24, 2006 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Da349633 Decided transfer money. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the money recorded in the order to the plaintiff. On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the obligation pursuant to the above final judgment, and thus, there is benefit
2. As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he was dissolved under Article 520-2 (1) of the Commercial Act as a dormant company on December 16, 1997 and that the liquidation was completed on December 16, 200 pursuant to Article 520-2 (4) of the Commercial Act, and that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's request. Thus, if it is impossible to conclude that the liquidation was completed even when the liquidation was completed, the liquidation was completed, it is recognized as a liquidation corporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da3408, Apr. 22, 1997; 90Ma672, Apr. 30, 1991). As seen above, the defendant's claim on a different premise is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.