대여금
1. The Defendants each of the KRW 4,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, C, and E with respect thereto, respectively, from December 23, 2014, and Defendant D.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the defendants sent to the plaintiff, on March 15, 2014, a letter of commitment to the effect that the plaintiff would pay 17 million won for the event expenses required for preparation for the event related to the "H Science Forum" and complete repayment by May 2014. The plaintiff trusted the above letter of commitment by the defendants and remitted 4 million won to the defendants on March 16, 2014, and additionally remitted 7 million won for the event expenses and transportation expenses.
According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to pay 4,00,000 won per annum for 24,000,000 won and 4,000,000 won per annum for each of the following day from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendants according to the principle of installment obligations, and to pay 5% per annum for the period of November 24, 2015 (Civil Act) and 15% per annum for each of the following day from the day after the issuance of each of the copies of the complaint of this case to the defendants.
(1) Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants’ above payment obligation is a joint and several liability. Rather, it is reasonable to deem the Defendants’ above payment obligation as a divided liability pursuant to the principle of divided liability between many parties. Meanwhile, according to the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) main text of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Etc., amended on September 25, 2015, the legal interest rate of 15% per annum shall be applied from October 1, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages beyond the scope from the date following the date the judgment was rendered is rejected).