logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2015가단38635
양수금(일부금)
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from January 29, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The cause of the claim shall be the cause of the claim, and the creditor shall be the plaintiff and the debtor shall be the defendant.

The facts can be acknowledged according to the contents of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no reflective evidence.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant corporation cannot respond to the claim of this case since it is a corporation which has been dissolved on December 6, 2005 pursuant to Article 520(2) of the Commercial Act. However, even if the company is dissolved and its liquidation is deemed to have been completed pursuant to Article 520-2(1) through (4) of the Commercial Act, if the legal relationship remains and it is necessary to adjust it actually, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of the above.

Therefore, the above argument is rejected as it is without merit (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968).

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the representative liquidator of the defendant company was confirmed to be declared bankrupt and immunity, but the claim in this case is not a claim against the representative liquidator of the defendant company against the defendant company, but a claim against the defendant company which is a corporation, and thus, the above assertion is rejected

2. If so, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 100,000,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 29, 2015 to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, on the record, as well as on the day following the day on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

arrow