logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단5032861
구상금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 109,479,450 won to the plaintiff and 100,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from February 11, 2005 to March 7, 2005.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) The judgment against the Defendant on May 13, 2005 against the Defendant was rendered that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 109,493,150, and KRW 100,000,000 among them, 5% per annum from February 11, 2005 to March 7, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “prior judgment”).

(2) On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff received an application for payment order before being performed as the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription based on the instant prior judgment.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, significant fact in this court, Gap 1’s entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 109,493,150 won and 100,000,000 won among them, barring any special circumstance, 5% per annum from February 11, 2005 to March 7, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the claim 1) The defendant asserts that "a claim based on the judgment of the preceding case is also exempt from the obligation based on the judgment of the preceding case because it was declared bankrupt after the judgment of the preceding case," and that "a claim based on the final judgment of the case constitutes non-exempt claims under Article 566 (3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act."

(2) In addition, the Defendant’s fidelity guarantee insurance contract, which serves as the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim, was concluded between Korea Investment Trust Securities Company and the Plaintiff working for the Defendant, and the Defendant’s debt to the said company was incurred in the course of investment to compensate for the damages suffered by the customers of the said company at the time of working in the said company, taking into account such circumstances.

arrow