beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단26647

구상금

Text

1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with the plaintiff 1,247,134,643 won and 1,03,356,226 won among them. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19500, Apr. 24, 2006>

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C, D, B, and E seeking reimbursement, etc. under the Jeonju District Court Branch of 2006Kahap1956. On July 6, 2007, the above court rendered a lawsuit against the Defendant and C, D, B, and E, with “1,277,745,149 won jointly and severally for the Plaintiff, and 1,268,507,879 won out of the above amount, and 1,268,507,879 won, from April 24, 2006 to January 12, 2007; Defendant C, from September 20, 2006 to September 21, 2006; Defendant D, from September 21, 2006 to September 15, 206; Defendant B, and E, to November 19, 2006, respectively.”

(B) Of the above judgment, the part against the Plaintiff and the Defendant was finalized on July 26, 2007. B. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of interrupting the prescription of claims against the Defendant, etc. based on the previous judgment in the instant case. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry in Gap 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,247,134,643 won and 1,03,356,226 won among them, as requested by the plaintiff, 15% per annum from April 24, 2006 to November 30, 2012, 12% per annum from the next day to January 31, 2016, 10% per annum from the next day to October 21, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the payment order of this case, and 10% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. The defendant's defense, etc. 1 is that the plaintiff's claim of this case was occurred before F was appointed as the representative of the defendant, and F did not receive succession after F was appointed as the representative of the defendant, and F merely was the representative director on a document that did not participate in the defendant's business and did not own shares, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is unjustifiable.

However, the plaintiff's instant case.