양수금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,230,753 and KRW 50,100,753 among them, 17% per annum from May 16, 1995 to January 31, 198.
1. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the claim for indemnity amount against the defendant, Seoul Western District Court 2010Kadan18747, on the ground of the claim for indemnity amount. The above court rendered a judgment on July 13, 2010 on the ground that "the defendant transferred to the plaintiff 50,230,753 won and 50,100,753 won from May 16, 1995 to January 31, 198; 25% per annum from the following day to August 31, 1998; 20% per annum from the next day to December 31, 1998; and 18% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and the judgment against the defendant 20% after the decision became final and conclusive."
According to this, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition that the plaintiff seeks within the scope of the judgment amount to the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit again for the extension of prescription.
2. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above claim acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.
However, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court 2010Kadan187477 became final and conclusive on July 30, 2010 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on April 6, 2020, before ten years elapse thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired was interrupted.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.