logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.14 2018가합564323
매매잔대금
Text

1. Defendant B and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 427,819,360, and Defendant B from June 27, 1997 to September 8, 2007.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, E, F, and G with the Incheon District Court 2007Gahap5560, May 7, 2008, and the above court rendered a judgment that “The Defendant and E, F, and G jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 427,819,360, as well as the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 427,819,360 as from June 27, 1997 until July 11, 2007; the F until May 23, 2007; the Defendant B until September 8, 2007; the Defendant C until July 10, 2007; the Defendant C until July 10, 2007; the Defendant D’s share of KRW 5% per annum until February 14, 2008; and each of the following 20% per annum from the day of full payment.”

B. On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim under the foregoing judgment (hereinafter “instant claim for judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, pursuant to the above finalized Incheon District Court Decision 2007Gahap5560 decided May 7, 2008 (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”), the Defendants jointly and severally have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff 427,819,360 won, and to pay the Plaintiff 15% interest per annum from June 27, 1997 until September 8, 2007; Defendant C until July 10, 2007; and Defendant C until February 14, 2008; and 5% per annum from the following day to July 2, 2018; and each of them from the next day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

Since the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment is imminent, there is benefit in litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da24349 Decided January 17, 2019, etc.). 3. Determination as to Defendant C’s defense, etc.

A. First, Defendant C has a defense that immunity was granted to the claim of the instant judgment amount as the immunity decision became final and conclusive in the bankruptcy procedure.

Pleadings shall be made in each entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

arrow