양수금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. For Defendant A: 148,750,500 won and 45,324,316 won among them:
B. Defendant B is Defendant A.
1. The judgment on the cause of the claim (Provided, That the creditor is the plaintiff and the debtor is the defendant) is not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the whole entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including additional numbers). Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from December 30, 2015, which is the day following the calculation of the final interest on the credit card theory jointly and severally with the defendant A, as to the sum of KRW 148,750,50,50, and the principal amount of KRW 45,324,316, and the principal amount of KRW 45,070,110, and KRW 13,48,700, among the above amounts, as to the sum of the principal and interest on the credit card theory jointly and severally with the defendant A.
2. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim for the takeover amount has expired. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants with the Daegu District Court Decision No. 2006Kadan986, Apr. 21, 2006, which ordered the plaintiff to pay the takeover amount, and it can be recognized that the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the lawsuit of this case was filed prior to the lapse of 10 years thereafter, the defendants' defenses are without merit.
In addition, Defendant A asserts that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim by filing an application for bankruptcy or exemption with the Daegu District Court 2016Hadan1105. However, Defendant A’s above assertion is not reasonable on the sole ground that Defendant A filed an application for bankruptcy or exemption.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.