대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 50,000,000, and the Defendants from January 16, 2013 to November 8, 2019.
On August 15, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to Defendant B on January 15, 201, without an agreement on interest, with the due date set on January 15, 201, and Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s above loan obligation on the same day by the same date may be recognized as either there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.
As to this, the Defendants are merely receiving KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as the time limit money, and there is no evidence to reverse the above fact of recognition.
In addition, the Defendants asserted that Defendant B transferred approximately KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and that Defendant B’s husband paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff and agreed to be exempted from all of the Defendants’ remainder of the loan obligations. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Defendants’ defense is without merit.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from January 16, 2013, the following day of the above repayment period, to November 8, 2019, to November 21, 2019, to June 21, 2019, to Defendant C is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.
(The provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings is amended on May 21, 2019 and enforced on June 1, 2019, only damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 1, 2019 to the date of full payment. Thus, the part in excess of the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is without merit.