A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2008 as 10325. On May 15, 2009, the said court rendered a judgment against the Defendant, etc. that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 300 million won with the interest of 5% per annum from October 18, 2008 to May 15, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on June 14, 2010.

B. On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for the extension of the statute of limitations of claims based on the instant judgment.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who again files a lawsuit for an extension of prescription the amount of KRW 300,000,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from October 18, 2008 to May 15, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that the instant claim should be dismissed since the Defendant was dissolved and the completion of liquidation is between the Defendant’s dissolution, and thus, the Defendant was subject to dissolution pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 1, 2010 and the completion of liquidation pursuant to Article 520-2(4) of the Commercial Act on December 2, 2013. The fact that the registration of the completion of liquidation with respect to the Defendant was completed is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings, but the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed.

Even if the liquidation work is not completed, it shall continue to exist as a liquidation corporation within the extent unless it is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da66427, 73371, Feb. 11, 2003, etc.). Thus, as long as the defendant bears obligations against the plaintiff, the liquidation work has not been completed as long as it is based on the judgment of this case.

That is, the scope of such act.