1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant A Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 87,019,471 and KRW 39,554,317 among them, from August 10, 2002.

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the reasons for the claim as to the judgment of the reasons for the claim can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, and the whole purport of the arguments, and there is no counter-proof.

As to this, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A Co., Ltd.”) asserts to the effect that Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation dissolved and terminated pursuant to Article 520(1) and (4) of the Commercial Act, and thus, it cannot comply with the claim of this case. However, even a company, which is dissolved and deemed to have been terminated pursuant to Article 520-2(1) through (4) of the Commercial Act, where it is necessary to adjust its legal relationship in reality because its legal relationship remains, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968). Thus, the above assertion is

Although the defendant company also asserted that the bankruptcy and immunity has become final and conclusive against the representative liquidator F of the defendant company, it is clear that the claim in this case is not a claim against the representative liquidator of the defendant company against the defendant company, but a claim against the defendant company which is a corporation, and thus, it cannot be accepted as

2. As such, the claim of this case for the extension of the prescription period of the previous final and conclusive judgment is judged to have interests in the lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the reason of admitting the claim.