구상금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 142,619,832 among the Plaintiff and KRW 142,354,99,00 per annum from December 21, 2006 to February 10, 2007.
1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment of final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and B, and C for the claim for reimbursement amount of KRW 170 million from the Seoul Central District Court 2007da8974, and was sentenced to the award on May 9, 2007 without pleadings, and the amount quoted against the defendant, etc. in the above judgment is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the disposition (However, the interest rate for delay from February 11, 2007 to the date of full payment is 20% per annum). The ground for the claim of the above case can be acknowledged that the plaintiff claimed the amount of subrogated payment on the ground that the plaintiff had provided credit guarantee to the corporate bank on December 21, 2006, but had claimed the amount of subrogated payment of KRW 16,903,801 from the corporate bank on November 18, 2002.
2. Determination
A. The claim of this case is for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim established by the above judgment.
B. Ultimately, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 142,619,832, including the amount of indemnity, and the amount of KRW 142,354,94, whichever is the principal of indemnity, 15% per annum from December 21, 2006 to February 10, 207, the date of subrogation, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
C. The Defendant asserted that he was sentenced to discharge on July 30, 2009. However, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2009 If the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was the representative liquidator of the Defendant, and the applicant was not requested by the Defendant, and thus, even if the Defendant was sentenced to discharge on the above case, the Defendant’s obligation is not exempted.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion