beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 1,265,816,40 and KRW 366,434,942 among Defendant B Co., Ltd., Defendant B, from April 15, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and G with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan438497 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on June 24, 2009: “The Defendant Company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 19% per annum for KRW 378,083,217 and KRW 378,082,649 from April 26, 2005 to the day of full payment; and G shall pay the said amount within the extent that it does not exceed 650,000,000 won jointly with the Defendant Company.” The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
(b) is not greater than G. The deceased;
The deceased died on December 5, 2018. Defendant D, his children, Defendant E, and F filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of extending the prescription period for the judgment claim under the foregoing paragraph (a) on May 31, 2019 for the sake of the extension of the period of prescription. [This case’s loan remains as of March 28, 2019. (c) The said court rendered a ruling to accept the report on March 28, 2019.
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant Company: (a) is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,265,816,40 (=36,434,942 Won 89,381,458) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as to the principal amount of KRW 366,434,942 from April 15, 2019 to the date of full payment; (b) is jointly and severally with the Defendant Company within the scope of property inherited to the Deceased; and (c) Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of KRW 278,571,428 out of the amount stated in the above paragraph (1) (650,000,000 x 3/7) and the amount of KRW 185,714,286 among the amount stated in the above paragraph (1) x the amount of KRW 650,000,27).
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.