beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 130,340,468 won and 129,237,38 won among them, with the year from June 29, 2006 to September 28, 2006.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation received a judgment against the defendant et al. on February 1, 2007 that "the defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 130,340,468 won and 129,237,38 won from June 29, 2006 to September 28, 2006; 16% per annum from the next day to November 29, 2006; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." Since this judgment became final and conclusive on March 21, 2007; and the defendant shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of money to the plaintiff on September 1, 2012.
2. On this issue, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s special representative A applied for exemption from 2010 if he/she applied for exemption from 2667 and the exemption from immunity was granted on April 14, 201, and that the decision became final and conclusive on April 29, 201, the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with.
However, the defendant's debt is not exempted because A received immunity from immunity, and the defendant's argument is without merit.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the claim that the plaintiff acquired was extinguished by prescription.
The extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the fact that the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan270222 became final and conclusive on March 21, 2007 is as seen earlier, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on January 25, 2017, before ten years elapse thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired was interrupted.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.