beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the annual amount of KRW 1,582,469,332 and KRW 303,475,879, whichever is applicable, from June 5, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant et al. with the Daejeon District Court, and the above court rendered a judgment on October 22, 2008, which became final and conclusive at that time (Seoul District Court Decision 2008Da39493). The above judgment was affirmed at that time (Seoul District Court Decision 2008DaDa39493). ② The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above judgment bonds (hereinafter “the instant bonds”) to the plaintiff on October 30, 2013 pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation and notified the defendant of the assignment of claims at that time. ③ The claim in this case is recognized as having the principal and interest of claims as of June 5, 2018.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the instant bonds at KRW 1,582,469,332 as of June 5, 2018, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 5, 2018 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 303,475,879, of the principal of the bonds as of June 5, 2018.
2. The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is that since the representative liquidator B, who is the defendant's representative liquidator, obtained bankruptcy and immunity as to the plaintiff's obligation from the Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Hadan5019 (Declaration of Bankruptcy) and 2006Ma5315 (Immunity), he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, although B was declared bankrupt and immunity from immunity, it is not exempt from the defendant's obligation, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.