양수금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 42,979,351 to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Industrial Bank of Korea set forth 450,000,000 won to the defendant limited liability company A (hereinafter "the defendant company") on December 30, 204 under the joint and several surety by the defendant B, etc. (hereinafter "the defendant company") as the repayment date on December 20, 2010, the claims against the defendant company against the defendant company were subsequently transferred to the plaintiff via the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, through the Korea Asset Management Bank, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate with the Seoul Southern District Court branch C on June 7, 201, and appropriated part of principal and interest with dividends of KRW 540,000,000 as to the real estate owned by the defendant company, and currently the plaintiff's claims against the defendant company against the defendant company as the fact that the plaintiff's claims
According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 42,979,351 to the Plaintiff.
2. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B had already completed the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim.
However, the Plaintiff’s claim applies a five-year extinctive prescription to commercial claim. As seen earlier, the auction procedure regarding the real estate owned by the Defendant Company was in progress, and the dividend was terminated on June 7, 2011, and it is apparent in the record that the application for the instant payment order was received on March 22, 2016, before the lapse of five years from the application for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff’s claim did not extinguish the prescription. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.