양수금
1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with C and B about KRW 146,85,696 and KRW 30,491,316 among them to the plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 6, 2020>
1. In full view of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against Eul, Eul, and the defendant for the amount of indemnity claim No. 2009da107224, Apr. 20, 2010. The above court rendered a judgment of "C, B, and the defendant jointly and severally notify the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund of the amount of KRW 30,638,517 and 30,618,506 as to the amount of KRW 30,618,50,000 from February 4, 1994 to July 31, 1994; KRW 17% per annum from the following day to Oct. 31, 1998; and KRW 25% per annum from the following day to June 28, 199; and the judgment of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund rendered a full payment to the defendant."
According to the above, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff who re-appellants the suit for the extension of prescription.
2. As to this, the defendant asserts that the above claim acquired by the plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.
However, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that the judgment of the Busan District Court 2009Kadan10724 was finalized on May 18, 2010 is as seen earlier, and the fact that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on February 21, 2020, which was 10 years after the lapse of 10 years thereafter, is apparent in the record, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the plaintiff acquired was not completed.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.