beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party B shall not exceed 59,826,718 won, respectively, to the extent of the property inherited from the network C.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party B (hereinafter "the defendant"), etc. with the Busan District Court. The above court rendered a judgment on Jan. 9, 2008, which became final and conclusive around that time (Seoul District Court 2007Da57042). (2) The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund transferred the above judgment claim (hereinafter "claim of this case") to the plaintiff on Sept. 27, 2012 pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Efficient of Non-Performing Assets, etc. and the Establishment of Korea Technology Guarantee Fund, and (3) the claims of this case to D, etc., which are the principal debtor, were notified of the assignment of claims of this case as of Dec. 26, 2017.
B. According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired the claims of this case 59,826,718 won and 58,95,744 won per annum from September 14, 1996 to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the Defendants had already been sentenced to the judgment of the order stated in the separate sheet No. 2 in Busan District Court case No. 2007Kadan57042, but filed the instant lawsuit for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period for the claim for the claim for reimbursement amount. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim shall be dismissed or at least the cost of the instant lawsuit shall be borne by each party.
B. The court below held that the plaintiff voluntarily filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the prescription period of the claim in this case, but the above circumstance alone does not constitute a ground to dismiss the plaintiff's claim in this case.