1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 59,063,319 and KRW 48,956,76 among them, from October 13, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff is recognized as having won (hereinafter “related judgment”) that: (a) on July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the claim for the payment of construction price; and (b) on November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff received a favorable judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from June 4, 2016 to November 23, 2017; and (c) interest per annum of 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “related judgment”); and (d) the Nonparty Company appealed, but the appeal by the Nonparty Company was dismissed on October 12, 2018.

On October 22, 2018, the defendant was established in installments from the non-party company after the relevant judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, established in division from the non-party company, is jointly and severally liable to repay the debt to the plaintiff of the non-party company pursuant to the relevant judgment pursuant to Article 530-9(1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from October 13, 2018 to the date of full payment for the principal amount of KRW 59,063,319, and the principal amount of KRW 48,956,766 as of October 13, 2018.

B. On September 6, 2018, the Defendant announced the Korea Press on September 6, 2018, which was before the establishment of the company by dividing the company from the non-party company, to the E Association that the Defendant would be assigned a construction work from the non-party company on October 5, 2018 pursuant to Article 18 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection or present an opinion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

In the event that there is a change in the company's responsible property due to a loss, division, or merger by split, the Commercial Act has the right to raise an objection against the creditor in order to protect the creditor.