1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 79,623,500 won and 5% per annum from July 5, 2004 to November 29, 2004.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an order with the Defendants for the payment of the amount of reimbursement claim with the Gwangju District Court 2004 tea 1987, the ASEAN Branch Court 2004. The Plaintiff received an order for payment from the said court on November 24, 2004, stating that “The Defendants jointly and severally filed with the Plaintiff the payment order, 5% per annum from July 5, 2004 to November 29, 2004 (the delivery date of the original payment order), and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The above payment order was finalized on December 14, 2004.

B. On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the above payment order.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 79,623,500 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 5, 2004 to November 29, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. (1) The Defendant A asserts that, on April 11, 201, he/she applied for bankruptcy and exemption to the Seoul Central District Court, he/she was granted immunity, and that the Plaintiff’s claim in this case was transferred to Mez Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was granted immunity by being included in the list of creditors in the list of creditors, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case cannot be complied with.

On April 11, 2011, Defendant A was granted immunity by the Seoul Central District Court 201Da8313 on April 11, 2011, and the list of creditors included Nonparty A, the principal creditor of KRW 78 million, and around that time, the decision of immunity became final and conclusive.

However, as alleged by the defendant A, the above claim of the non-party company included in the creditor list is against the plaintiff.