양수금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall complete the payment of KRW 97,351,897 and KRW 39,376,797 among them from September 18, 2014.
1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts of recognition common to the defendants Gap 1 through 9 (including branch numbers), it is recognized that each of the reasons for claim and the changed reasons for claim were stated in the separate sheet, and the plaintiff has a limit of KRW 65 million for the defendant Eul's obligations to the plaintiff in the first pleading of this case, and the purport of the claim was reduced as stated in Paragraph 1-B of this Article.
2. Defendant A;
A. The indication of claims: According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A bears the same obligation as the Plaintiff’s Paragraph (a) of Article 1.
(b) Mountainous: Judgment based on the deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. According to the facts of the recognition as above, Defendant B, the heir of the network C, succeeded to the net C’s obligation to the Plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the network C. Thus, Defendant B and the Plaintiff jointly and severally do so.
An obligation, such as the entry in the subsection, shall be borne.
In this regard, although Defendant B asserted that the obligation of the above transfer money has expired, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap's statement, it is recognized that the non-party mutual savings bank, the original creditor of the claim of the transfer money of this case (i.e., the transferor of the claim), was awarded a favorable judgment by filing a claim suit against the deceased C and the defendant A (Seoul District Court Decision 2005Kadan29865, Mar. 2, 2006). The plaintiff was transferred the claim based on the above favorable judgment from the original creditor, and the lawsuit in this case was instituted for the extension of the prescription period prior to the expiration of the prescription period of the above transfer money claim of this case which the plaintiff acquired by the plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant B’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.