beta
Text
1. The Defendants and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) jointly and severally possess KRW 27,257,59 and KRW 25,752,008 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The following facts are deemed to have been led to the confession of the Defendants pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and Defendant C, and the entire purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers).
(1) On June 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of reimbursement against the Defendants on June 2, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that “The Defendants jointly and severally rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that “The amount of KRW 28,941,089 and KRW 28,624,208 shall be paid to the Plaintiff at a rate of 18% per annum from June 30, 2005 to March 21, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The instant judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2006.
After the judgment of the case in this case became final and conclusive, the plaintiff recovered KRW 2,872,200 as of November 13, 2006 and did not receive the remainder of the claim for reimbursement. The remaining amount of the claim for reimbursement is KRW 25,752,08 (28,624,208,208-2,872,200), claim 1,027,927, substitute payment 47,64 in total and KRW 27,257,59.
B. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the balance of principal of the claim for indemnity based on the judgment of this case, 25,752,08 won, 1,027,927 won of finalized damages, 47,664 won of substitute payment, and 27,257,59 won of principal and 25,752,008 won of these principal within the scope of the above judgment, as sought by the plaintiff within the scope of the above judgment, 18% per annum from June 30, 2005 to March 21, 2006, 20% per annum from March 22, 206 to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay by 15% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015. The lawsuit of this case brought for interruption of the extinctive prescription period for the benefit of this case.
2. As to Defendant C’s assertion of non-existence of debt and counterclaim claim.