1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,627,484,704 and KRW 500,000,00 among them.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 22, 2008, Yong-Nam Savings Bank Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 2 billion to Defendant Shin Young Construction Co., Ltd. at maturity on May 22, 2009, at the rate of 12% per annum, and at the rate of delay damages, at 25% per annum. On that day, Defendant A and B Co., Ltd were jointly and severally and severally guaranteed.
B. Defendant Shinsung Construction Co., Ltd. pays only interest until July 16, 2009, and the balance of the current loan is KRW 1,729,946,548, and the amount of final delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay under the relevant statutes, from July 17, 2009 to January 15, 2014, are KRW 1,897,538,156.
C. On September 26, 2013, Yong-Nam Savings Bank Co., Ltd. was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Busan District Court Decision 2013Hahap16, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. 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 amount of KRW 3,627,484,70 (i.e., KRW 1,729,946,548 for delay delay damages of KRW 1,897,538,156 for the balance of loans and KRW 500,000,000, which is part of the balance of loans, as sought by the Plaintiff, for delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the statutory delay damages rate from January 17, 2014 to the date of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. At the time of the instant loan, the Defendants asserted that the damages for delay should be limited to 40% of the balance of the loan, while there is no ground to interpret the meaning of the above maximum debt amount as argued by the Defendants, and thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit, on the grounds that there is no ground to interpret the meaning of the above maximum debt amount as argued by the Defendants.
B. The Defendants related to the payment of interest asserted that they paid interest by June 28, 2012, but Gap.