beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 358,707,545, and KRW 99,145,760, respectively, from August 10, 2016.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-1, 2, and 3, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. received a judgment from the Defendants, etc. on September 28, 2006, and filed a lawsuit of indemnity amounting to 2006da176580 as stated in the attached Form, and on September 28, 2006, “the Defendant, etc. jointly and severally and severally against the Plaintiff,” 19% per annum from July 14, 2001 to August 12, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and this judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2006, and the fact that the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd transferred the above claims to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2013, and notified the Defendants of the aforementioned indemnity amount.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 358,707,545 won and 99,145,760 won with 20% interest per annum from August 10, 2016 to the date of full payment.
2. As to this, Defendant A Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant A”) asserts that the claim for indemnity that the Plaintiff acquired has expired by prescription.
On the other hand, the extinctive prescription of the claim established by the judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act). The Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit for indemnity against the Defendants and received a judgment of acceptance. The facts that this judgment became final and conclusive on November 3, 2006 are as seen earlier, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on August 16, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of the aforesaid ten-year period, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim for indemnity was interrupted.
Therefore, the defendant company's argument is without merit.
In addition, the defendant corporation was ordered to terminate its liquidation.
or representative liquidator C is granted immunity, and thus, he/she cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
The liquidation of a stock company shall be considered to have been dissolved and terminated in accordance with Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act.