구상금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 174,753,013 out of the amount of KRW 343,415,126 and the above amount of KRW 174,753,013 from October 30 to January 29, 2008.
There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 174,753,013 out of the above amount with 14% per annum from October 30, 2008 to January 29, 2009; 162,603,103,103 out of the above amount with 14% per annum from November 3, 2008 to February 2, 2009; and 162,603,103 won per annum from the next day to June 16, 2009 to the next day; and 20% per annum from the next day to the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on December 3, 2015. However, even if a company is dissolved and is deemed to have completed its liquidation under Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if it still remains in a legal relationship and it is necessary to adjust it in reality, it is not completely extinguished within the scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da7607, May 27, 1994; 2000Du5333, Jul. 13, 2001). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.