beta
Text
1. The defendant shall not exceed KRW 59,743,678 within the extent of KRW 106,972,024 to the plaintiff jointly and severally with Eul and 54.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 15, 2008, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant, B, and C by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2007Da45358, the Court rendered a lawsuit on April 15, 2008 and rendered a favorable judgment from the above court with “The Defendant jointly and severally with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund 59,743,678 won out of 106,972,02,024 won, and 54,453,379 won out of them, with 17% per annum from May 16, 1995 to January 31, 1998; 25% per annum from the following day to August 31, 1998; 20% per annum from the next day to December 31, 198; and 30% per annum from the day to 20% per annum until December 31, 2005.”
B. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for reimbursement (hereinafter “instant claim”) established by the said judgment from the Credit Guarantee Fund, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim on July 7, 2015.
C. On June 11, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case.
B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims from the Plaintiff, but even if the Defendant did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims, the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the Defendant did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims, on July 15, 2018, was served with the certificate of the assignment of claims submitted through the instant lawsuit, and thus, was
In addition, the defendant asserts that the claim of this case was extinguished by prescription, but the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case was against the defendant.