beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 89,153,941 and KRW 64,148,876 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from June 8, 2005 to August 5, 2006.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement against the Defendant, etc. with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Kadan167432, and rendered a judgment on September 12, 2006, that “The Defendant, etc. jointly and severally filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement with the Plaintiff, to pay 15% per annum from June 8, 2005 to August 5, 2006 with the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 78,330,739 (hereinafter “instant subrogated payment”), and the judgment of this case became final and conclusive on October 31, 206.
B. After that, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 14,181,863 out of the judgment amount in this case and appropriated it for the repayment of the subrogated amount in this case, the amount of subrogated payment in this case remains 64,148,876 won, and there was 24,977,405 won as of September 12, 2016 and penalty for attempted penalty 27,660 won.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 89,153,941 won (=64,148,876 won 24,977,405 won) and 64,148,876 won by subrogation, whichever is 15% per annum from June 8, 2005 to August 5, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 89,153,941 won (=64,148,876 won 24,977, 405 won) and the amount subrogated for 64,148,60 won by subrogation. The lawsuit of this case is for
B. As to the defendant's argument, the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion was terminated by dissolution as the defendant was dismissed, and the defendant representative liquidator is insolvent, and thus he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, even a company dissolved under Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act and its liquidation is considered to have been terminated, if there is a need for liquidation in reality due to the existence of a legal relationship, it is not completely extinguished within the scope of the above scope.