beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant A and Defendant C shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff 95,448.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the return of oil purchase price with the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Da32753 against the Defendants, stating that “The Defendant Company A is obligated to refund KRW 95,448,550 for oil purchase price, and Defendant B and C guaranteed the payment of the above obligation, and the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 16, 2006 to the date of full payment.” The Plaintiff was sentenced to a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on July 4, 2006 with no pleading, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the statute of limitations for the instant judgment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 95,448,550 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 16, 2006 to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant B’s defense, etc. asserted that Defendant B was exempted from bankruptcy. Thus, according to the records, Defendant B was declared bankrupt on September 27, 2013 by the District Court Decision 201Hahdan1700, and the decision of immunity was made on December 27, 2013 by the District Court Decision 201Hahdan1700, and Defendant B was exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for dividends under the bankruptcy procedure (main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Accordingly, Defendant B’s defense is justified. However, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B omitted the Plaintiff’s claim on the list of creditors of the aforementioned exemption case, as seen above, the effect of exemption is entirely remains unchanged, and the above assertion is without merit.
Provided, That the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, .