beta
Text
1. As to KRW 1,269,446,780 among the Plaintiff and KRW 1,268,663,667 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from February 28, 2018 to April 16, 2018.
Reasons
1. In full view of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim, the facts of the cause of the claim (However, the "creditor" shall be deemed to be "the plaintiff," and the "debtor" to be "the defendant") may be acknowledged.
According to the above facts, the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,269,446,780 won (i.e., the total amount of the subrogated amount of KRW 1,268,663,667 in total and the total amount of the fixed delay damages for the recovery of subrogated amount of KRW 1,268,663,667 in total) and the total amount of the subrogated amount of KRW 1,268,663,667 in total as of February 28, 2018, which is the date of subrogation, until April 16, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 10% per annum as determined by the plaintiff from February 28, 2018 until April 16, 2018, and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum as
2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the rehabilitation procedures for the corporation B, which is the principal debtor, are initiated and the rehabilitation procedures are in progress, the lawsuit against the defendant who is the joint and several sureties, shall be suspended.
However, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act stipulates that a decision is made to commence rehabilitation procedures relating to the debtor's property, and there is no provision regarding the procedures for the guarantor (Article 59), and the rehabilitation plan does not affect the rights of the rehabilitation creditor against the guarantor of the debtor for whom rehabilitation procedures have commenced (Article 250 (2) 1). Thus, if a decision is made to commence rehabilitation procedures for the principal debtor, the procedures for the guarantor may not be interrupted. This does not change with the fact that the guarantor is the representative director of the company which is the principal debtor.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.