양수금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,446,609 and KRW 36,706,282 from October 20, 1994.
The facts as indicated in the Reasons for Claim Nos. 1 through 3 do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or can be recognized in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments as stated in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 3. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from October 20, 1994, which is the date of subrogation to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment.
In relation to the claim of this case, Defendant B asserted that the five-year extinctive prescription of the claim of this case was expired with commercial claim, but according to the description of the evidence No. 1 and the facts shown in this court, Defendant B filed a lawsuit against Defendant B (Seoul Central District Court 2005Da362926) for the claim for indemnity payment (Seoul Central District Court 2005DaGa362926) against the transferor of the claim of this case against Defendant B was sentenced on April 27, 2006 and confirmed on June 13, 2006, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on May 13, 2016 after acquiring the final claim from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund before the ten-year extinctive prescription of the final claim of this case was expired. Thus, Defendant C's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant B was unable to comply with the claim of this case since he was not notified of the assignment of the claim by the Plaintiff, but the notification of the assignment of claim was substituted by the service of the complaint of this case, so Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.