양수금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 62,368,458 and KRW 59,789,682 from December 14, 2004 to May 14, 2005.
1. The facts in the attached form of claim are as follows: Defendant B pursuant to Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act; Defendant A may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 to the entire pleadings against Defendant A.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay 62,368,458 won and 59,789,682 won to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for the advanced judgment of this case and 59,789,682 won of the principal, which is within the scope of damages for delay finalized by the above preceding judgment, and as they seek, 18% per annum from December 14, 2004 to May 31, 2005, 15% per annum from the next day to September 23, 2009, 20% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant Company A’s assertion, the Defendant Company discontinued its business in around 2004, and the representative liquidator C was finally decided upon grant of immunity on November 30, 2010, and thus, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request. However, the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed after the corporate closure.
Even if the liquidation work is not completed, the liquidation corporation remains in existence within the scope of the liquidation work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da66427, 73371, Feb. 11, 2003). The decision to exempt the representative of a corporation from liability to an individual does not constitute a ground for preventing the claim against the corporation.
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.