대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs each of KRW 150,000,000 and the Defendants’ respective of them from December 31, 2006 to October 20, 2015.
Based on the facts, on June 14, 2006, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with each of the following dates on December 30, 2006 on the date on which the debtor Defendant E, the joint and several surety Defendant F, the loan amount of KRW 600 million, and the repayment date. The above KRW 600 million was set up.
A. The obligees of Article 1 (Purpose) of A. The obligees of Article 1 (Purpose) lent gold n.e., gold n.e. (600,000,000) to the obligor (Defendant E refers to Defendant E; hereinafter the same shall apply) on June 14, 2006, and the obligor borrowed this.
Article 2 (Time-Limit and Method of Performance) The obligor shall pay to the obligees by December 30, 2006 with respect to the above debt amount.
Article 3(Interest)No interest shall accrue on the above money.
When the debtor delays the repayment of the above amount, the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum for the delayed principal.
Article 8 (Joint Guarantee) The surety (Defendant F refers to the defendant F; hereinafter the same shall apply) guaranteed the debtor's obligation under this Agreement and jointly and severally with the debtor.
Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor and a guarantor fail to discharge a pecuniary obligation under this contract, they recognized the absence of objection immediately even if compulsory execution has been effected.
Plaintiff
On June 14, 2006, the document of this case was drawn up by the representative G of A and C, and the plaintiff B, on June 14, 2006, with the defendants (the defendant Eul represented by the defendant F) as a notary public H No. 385, as follows:
A. 2. 【No. 2. 【No. 1’s ground for recognition, and Defendant E’s certificate denies the authenticity of the above certificate by asserting that the letters written in the loan certificate of this case are not the body of the principal. However, at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, Defendant F’s seal affixed with Defendant E’s permission does not conflict between the Plaintiffs and Defendant F.