beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 97,081,817 as well as KRW 1,993,409 as to the plaintiff. From October 22, 2002 to September 2, 2006.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 11, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant with this Court Order 2006Kadan190432, and received a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2006, stating that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 47,873,219 won and 47,549,589 won among them, 18% per annum from October 22, 2002 to September 2, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. Next, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 45,556,180 on July 13, 2012, among KRW 47,549,589, and KRW 6,300,00 on July 30, 2012, KRW 168,50 on December 168, 2012, KRW 70 on November 28, 2016, including KRW 45,56,180 on the aggregate of KRW 1,93,40 on December 13, 2016, and remaining principal after recovering KRW 45,56,180 on December 13, 2016.
C. On the other hand, B.
With respect to each recovery amount stated in the plaintiff's claim, a claim for final damages of KRW 95,08,408 has been created according to the ratio set by the plaintiff's management regulations of the right to indemnity, and the details are as shown in
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers)
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 97,081,817 won (1,993,409 won) and 1,993,409 won among them, 18% per annum from October 22, 2002 to September 2, 2006, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
The defendant asserts to the effect that the representative liquidator of the defendant was confirmed to be granted decision of immunity on September 22, 2006, and thus, the defendant is not responsible. However, since the representative liquidator was granted decision of immunity, it is not exempted from liability to the debtor company, the above argument is without merit.
3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion