1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 293,796,077 and the amount of KRW 207,351,502 from June 12, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in subparagraphs A through 3 above, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation filed a lawsuit against the defendant, etc. against the Daegu District Court. The above court rendered a judgment on July 18, 2008, which became final and conclusive at that time (Seoul District Court Decision 2007Da13265) and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time (Seoul District Court Decision 207Da13265) and ② the Korea Technology Finance Corporation transferred the above judgment claim (hereinafter “the instant claim”) to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and notified the defendant of the assignment of claims at that time; ③ as of June 12, 2018, the principal and interest (principal and interest) of the instant claim was transferred to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 293,796,077.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the instant bonds at the rate of 20% per annum from June 12, 2018 to the date of full payment as to KRW 293,796,07 of the principal and interest of the bonds as of June 12, 2018, and KRW 207,351,502 of the principal of the bonds as of the above base date.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim since the completion of liquidation was already completed, but even if the registration of completion of liquidation was completed, the defendant continues to exist as a liquidation corporation within the scope of the liquidation unless the liquidation work is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6427, 7371, Feb. 11, 2003). Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant alleged that B, a representative liquidator of the defendant, obtained bankruptcy and immunity on the plaintiff's obligations from the Daegu District Court No. 2006Hadan5009 (Declaration of Bankruptcy) and 2006 Ma5476 (Immunity), and thus, he cannot comply with the plaintiff's request. However, although B was declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity, it is not exempt from the defendant's obligations.