대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,19,387,308 and the interest rate thereon from October 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 16, 2006, Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Mutual Savings Bank”) made a loan to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) KRW 8 billion with a limit on loans, KRW 10 billion with a maturity of February 16, 2008, and KRW 8 billion with a maturity of 12% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). On the same day, Defendant B entered into a comprehensive collateral guarantee agreement with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank to set the limit on current and future obligations owed by the Defendant Company to Seoul Mutual Savings Bank as KRW 10.4 billion with the Seoul Mutual Savings Bank.
(hereinafter “instant neighborhood guarantee contract”). B.
The loan principal under the instant loan agreement was fully repaid, but the interest accrued as of July 17, 2014 was KRW 5,198,978,847.
C. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by the court on September 26, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest 3,19,387,308 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from October 23, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the final delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.
[The damages for delay exceeding the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 pursuant to the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 26553) is not recognized (see Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the aforementioned Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless). Accordingly, Defendant B concluded the instant contract as the nominal representative director of the Defendant Company and subsequently resigned, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim was made.