beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 84,795,058 and KRW 64,348,525 from December 3, 1992 until June 30, 1993.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers) as a whole, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation received a judgment from the defendant et al. on May 31, 2007 that "the defendant et al. jointly and severally received 86,148,334 won and 65,701,801 won from December 3, 1992 to June 30, 1993, 21% per annum from July 1, 1993 to July 31, 1994, and 18% per annum from August 1, 1994 to the date of full payment, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation received a judgment from the defendant et al. on May 31, 207 that "the defendant et al. shall be jointly and severally paid the defendant the amount of money calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 1, 1994 to the date of full payment."
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money set forth in paragraph (1) of the disposition that the plaintiff seeks within the scope of the above judgment.
2. The defendant asserts that since the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed on January 11, 2005, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
However, even if a company is deemed to have been dissolved and its liquidation has been terminated in accordance with Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if any legal relationship remains and it is necessary to be arranged in reality, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of the above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5333, Jul. 13, 2001). The defendant's assertion is without merit.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the claim that the plaintiff acquired was extinguished by prescription.
However, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a judgment is ten years (Article 165(1) of the Civil Act), and the Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gadan1088 Decided June 20, 2007, which became final and conclusive on June 20, 2007, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on March 14, 2017, before ten years elapse thereafter, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim that the Plaintiff acquired was interrupted.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.