대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,196,613 as well as 24% per annum from November 21, 2013 to the date of full payment.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on May 22, 2012.
(2) On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 52,30,000 at interest rate of KRW 6.9% per annum and KRW 24% per annum, and Defendant B entered into a contract as a joint guarantor of the Defendant Company. (2) On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 35,100,000 to the Defendant Company at interest rate of KRW 6.9% per annum and KRW 24% per annum, and Defendant B entered into a contract as a joint guarantor of the Defendant Company.
3) The Defendants are in arrears with the repayment of each of the above loans, and as of November 20, 2013, the Defendants are paying the principal of KRW 60,196,613 ( KRW 36,439,350, KRW 23,757,263) as of November 20, 2013.
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B, the principal debtor, and joint and several sureties, jointly and severally, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,196,613 of the loan and the amount calculated by the rate of interest rate of 24% per annum, which is the delayed interest rate from November 21, 2013 to the date of full payment.
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense
A. Defendant B’s defense asserts that, from September 2013 to October 10, 2013, Defendant B exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay a total of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s employees would no longer be held liable as a joint and several surety.
B. According to each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, witness C, and D’s testimony, Defendant B’s wife deposited KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013, and KRW 22 million on October 10, 2013, respectively, and the fact that the Plaintiff received withdrawal of the complaint against Defendant B’s criminal case on October 10, 2013 is recognized.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was fully exempted from all civil responsibilities against Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, Defendant B’s defense is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.