양수금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) starting January 13, 2014 for KRW 305,890,166 and KRW 174,104,325 among them.
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A, B, C, D, F, G, H, and I
A. The Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) borrowed KRW 300 million on April 31, 2007 between the Industrial Bank of Korea and the Industrial Bank of Korea, and KRW 200 million on November 26, 2007, respectively, and agreed that the Industrial Bank of Korea shall pay damages for delay in accordance with the interest rate set forth in the terms and conditions of credit transaction (hereinafter “instant credit transaction agreement”).
Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation under the credit transaction agreement of this case as the total amount of KRW 396 million on April 31, 2007, and November 25, 2007, including the maximum amount of KRW 396 million, Defendant B, F, G, and H I on November 28, 2007, and KRW 756 million on January 7, 2008. < Amended by Act No. 8797, Nov. 28, 2007; Act No. 850, Jan. 7, 2008>
On December 23, 2009, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred claims for loans under the instant credit transaction agreement to a limited liability company specializing in securitization, and notified the Defendant A of the transfer of the said claims on January 20, 2010. On January 31, 2013, the Korea Industrial Bank of Korea: (a) On January 31, 2013, the Korea Industrial Bank of Korea notified the Plaintiff (former Switzerland Savings Bank Co., Ltd.) of the transfer of the said loans; and (b) on February 25, 2013, notified the Defendant A of the said transfer of claims.
The above loan claims remain in KRW 174,104,325, 131,785,841, the sum of the unredeemed principal as of January 13, 2014, 305,890,166.
(b) Grounds for judgment 1) Defendant A, B, C, and F: Judgment by deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act) by means of service by publication (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E, evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and 2-3 (name of the joint and several surety for the probationary guarantee is based on the Defendant E’s seal, and there is no dispute between the parties that the following seal is based on the Defendant E’s seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established. Accordingly, Defendant E asserts that the document recorded by the other party was not genuine, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).