양수금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 92,146,347 and KRW 21,00,000 among them, 18% per annum from June 9, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the acquisition amount (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da37197) on August 30, 2006 and rendered a judgment that "the defendant jointly and severally with the plaintiff 52,766,381 won and 21,000,000 won per annum 18% per annum from January 10, 2006 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the defendant's obligation to pay the acquisition amount against the plaintiff is calculated as of June 8, 2016, the fact that the principal amount is 21,00,000 won, interest (damage) interest (damage) 71,146,347 won, total amount of KRW 92,146,347 won does not conflict with the parties, or that the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged if Gap's evidence 1 and 2 were written in each evidence.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from June 9, 2016 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 92,146,347 and KRW 21,00,000 among them.
B. The defendant's assertion argues that the extinctive prescription of the obligation against the plaintiff has expired.
However, the defendant's above-mentioned claim against the plaintiff is 10 years of extinctive prescription.
It is clear that the lawsuit in this case was filed before the lapse of 10 years from the date the above judgment became final and conclusive, and there is no other evidence to view that the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.