beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 138,510,641 and the amount of KRW 30,520,846 from October 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter “Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. on August 24, 2005 against the Seoul Central District Court 2007Da231941, and the above court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant, etc. jointly and severally rendered to the non-party Fund 4,420,33 won and 42,157,93 won and 18% per annum from October 21, 2002 to April 16, 2003; 16% per annum from the following day to October 23, 2007; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”); and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is on December 1, 2007.
B. On September 29, 2016, the Nonparty Fund transferred the claim for reimbursement based on the instant judgment (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the Plaintiff. On October 18, 2016, the Nonparty Fund notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim.
C. As of October 22, 2017, the remaining principal and interest of the instant claim are KRW 138,510,641 in total (i.e., principal and interest of KRW 30,520,846 or damages for delay).
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for the Plaintiff who acquired the instant claim from October 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff and the principal amount of KRW 30,520,846 among the above KRW 138,510,641, and from October 23, 2017 to the extent of damages for delay under the instant judgment.
B. The defendant's assertion that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he was declared bankrupt exemption. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.
According to the data submitted by the defendant, B, the representative liquidator of the defendant company, as the Do Government District Court 2013 Ma2899.