양수금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 992,747,887.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
3...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant A”) borrowed KRW 2,638,00,000 from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and Defendant B, D, and E jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation to pay the loan. On June 28, 2006, C transferred the above obligation to the Plaintiff (the remaining claim amount 1,250,562,812). On April 14, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, D, and E as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Ga974666.
On June 5, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings stating that "the defendant, D, and E shall jointly and severally pay KRW 1,250,562,812 to the plaintiff," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(hereinafter referred to as “pre-trial judgment”). (b)
D The heir of D died on August 20, 2015, and D is Defendant B (the spouse of D), F, G, H, and I (the children of D).
However, with respect to the inheritance of D’s property, Defendant B filed each of the above reports on the renunciation of inheritance with the Government District Court Decision 2015Ra2240, F, G, H, and I reported the renunciation of inheritance with the Government District Court Decision 2015Ra2239.
C. The balance of the foregoing loan claim (interest accrued) is KRW 992,747,887 as of March 5, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit for the interruption of the extinctive prescription of the claim for the amount of the loan which was established by the preceding judgment. Thus, the defendant A and the defendant B, who is the debtor of the above amount of the loan, are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 92,747,887, which is the amount of the loan which was not repaid
3. Defendant A’s assertion regarding Defendant A’s assertion that, in the case of Defendant B, the qualified acceptance was made on the inheritance of the property of Defendant D, the claim against Defendant B was groundless, but in the case of ordinary co-litigation.