logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단160885
구상금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 508,519,764 and KRW 501,596,303 among them. From December 30, 2003 to May 31, 2005.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan461213, and was sentenced by the above court on September 30, 2009 that “The Defendant, etc. jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 501,881,987 and KRW 501,596,303 as to the amount of KRW 18% per annum from December 30, 2003 to May 31, 2005; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to June 25, 2009; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment was finalized on October 21, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant prior suit judgment”). (b)

After the judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 6,637,777 for the preservation of claims, and filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of prescription period for the judgment of the previous suit of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 508,519,764 (i.e., KRW 501,81,987 Won 6,637,777) and KRW 501,596,303, whichever is applicable, 18% per annum from December 30, 2003 to May 31, 2005; 15% per annum from the next day to June 25, 2009; 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; 15% per annum from the next day to May 31, 2019; and damages for delay calculated by 12% per annum as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to this, the defendant's representative liquidator B was declared bankrupt on February 19, 2008 and decision of immunity on May 13, 2008, the defendant asserted that it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case (Seoul Central District Court 2007Da43806, 2007Hadan43778), but the plaintiff's claim of this case is not the defendant's representative's claim against the defendant, but against the defendant corporation. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow