beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. (1) As to the Defendant (Appointed Party) KRW 77,237,931 and KRW 20,000,000 among them, the Appointed Party B, and C.
Reasons
Attached Form
The facts stated in the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 4, 4, and 5.
According to the above facts, the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties are obligated to pay the amount stated in the order to the plaintiff.
As to this, the defendant (appointed party) alleged that the immunity decision against G, which is the primary debtor, has become final and conclusive, but Article 567 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that immunity does not affect the right of the bankruptcy creditor against the debtor's guarantor. Thus, the defendant (appointed party) and the designated party's guarantee responsibility do not affect any effect on the debtor's guarantor's right. Thus, the assertion itself is without merit.
Secondly, Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted to the effect that the extinctive prescription has expired as of October 28, 1997 and December 1, 1997 by the loan date of each of the above principal and interest loans. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the prescription has expired since the judgment became final and conclusive as to each of the above principal and interest claims, and thus, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant (Appointed Party), the appointed Party F, and the network E by requesting payment of each of the principal and interest loans under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004No21817, and received a favorable judgment, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2004, and as long as it is clear that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 19, 2014 before ten years have passed thereafter, it is without merit.
The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that the Plaintiff received KRW 83,676,893 on August 13, 2013 in the public auction procedure executed by the Plaintiff with respect to F’s real estate, and that the Plaintiff voluntarily applied for the auction of F’s real estate even after the lapse of the period, but the Plaintiff voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn the auction procedure.