A. The Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, B, etc. for the claim for reimbursement against the Incheon District Court Branch of 2009Da46523, Apr. 15, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant, B, etc. shall jointly and severally pay to the Credit Guarantee Fund the amount of KRW 130,384,628 and KRW 130,70,608 from December 30, 2004 to May 31, 2005; KRW 18% per annum from the following day to February 17, 2010; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the claim for reimbursement (hereinafter “instant claim”) established by the said judgment to the Plaintiff, and around October 30, 2014, notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim.

C. On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety is dissolved on December 1, 2009, and the liquidation is completed on December 3, 2012, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Even if the registration of the completion of liquidation of a juristic person has been completed, it shall continue to exist as a liquidated juristic person within the extent unless the liquidation affairs have been completed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da66427, 73371 delivered on February 11, 2003). The instant claim is arising before the completion of the Defendant’s liquidation affairs, and the Defendant’s liability for reimbursement is still still in existence.

Therefore, the Defendant’s main defense against the vessel’s safety cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, barring special circumstances, within the scope of damages for delay as set forth in the above final and conclusive judgment, with respect to the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case as to the total amount of KRW 130,384,628 and the principal amount of KRW 130,070,600 among them.