The defendants shall jointly and severally pay 50 million won to the plaintiff and 21% per annum from November 17, 2001 to the date of complete payment.

1. Determination as to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)

A. Defendant B asserts that the instant lawsuit should be dismissed on the ground that Defendant B’s liquidator D, expressed as the Defendant’s representative, is not a legitimate representative of Defendant B.

Even a company which is deemed to have been dissolved and the liquidation thereof has been terminated pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if there is a need to adjust it in reality, it shall not be terminated to the extent of any legal relationship, and in such a case, the director at the time of dissolution of the company shall naturally become a liquidator in cases where there are other provisions in the articles of incorporation or where a general meeting of shareholders does not appoint a liquidator separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27, 1994). According to the purport of the argument as a whole, the defendant B was registered in the corporate register as the representative, E, directors D, and F corporate register at the time of dissolution under Article 520-2 (1) of the Commercial Act, but the above entry was cancelled due to the dissolution, and as such, it is recognized that the above E is qualified to represent the defendant B as a director D, F due to the death of the E, and thus, the defendant's defense of this case shall be dismissed as the representative of the defendant.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 as to the merits and the entire arguments, G Co., Ltd. filed a lease claim lawsuit against defendant B (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap125545), and the above court rendered a judgment that "Defendant B shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and 21% interest per annum from November 17, 2001 to the date of full payment." The above judgment is correct.