채무부존재확인
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2...
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and C agreed to lend each of their own names KRW 50 million from the Defendant on April 4, 2013 to the maximum annual interest rate of 6 months, adding the interest rate of KRW 2.17%, and the interest rate of delay interest to the credit interest rate of KRW 11% per annum (8% per annum where the delayed interest rate is more than 3 months).
B. At the time of each of the above loans, the Plaintiffs worked as an employee of ASEAN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and the instant company established a pledge right on the loans that the instant company joined to secure the above loans of the Plaintiffs after the execution of loans to the Plaintiffs, but implemented the said pledge right on March 24, 2014, and paid KRW 25 million out of the loans of Plaintiff A, and KRW 25 million out of the respective loans of Plaintiff B and C on April 4, 2014.
C. The principal and interest of the loan unpaid to the Defendant is KRW 25 million (interest rate of KRW 4.86% per annum, which seems not to have been paid as of October 14, 2014) as of March 10, 2016, KRW 30,204,742 as of March 10, 2016 (the principal amount of KRW 25 million and interest rate of delay delay interest rate of KRW 11%) of Plaintiff C, as of March 10, 2016, KRW 30,212,277 (the principal amount of KRW 25 million and interest rate of delay delay interest rate of KRW 11% per annum).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs seek confirmation of the absence of each of the above loans by the plaintiffs against the defendant. When the company of this case was unable to obtain a loan from the defendant due to the excess of the lending limit, the plaintiffs as employees borrowed only in the form of loan and received the loan. The actual parties to each of the above lending contracts are the company of this case and the defendant was also aware of this, so each of the above lending contracts stated in the plaintiffs and the defendant's purport of the claim between the plaintiffs