대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 86,219,527 and KRW 84,843,651 among them, from October 15, 2016.
According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd.") under the joint and several guarantee of defendant B on July 31, 2015 at the rate of 60 months, interest rate of 8.9% per annum, interest rate of 25% per annum, and overdue interest rate of 25% per annum. The defendant Co., Ltd. lost its profits as of October 14, 2016. The remaining principal amount of KRW 84,843,651 as of October 14, 2016 is the interest amount of KRW 1,327,781, and damages for delay is the total of KRW 86,219,527.
The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 25% per annum, which is an overdue interest rate, from October 15, 2016 to the date of full payment, to KRW 86,219,527 and the principal amount of KRW 84,843,651.
In this regard, Defendant B asserts that the obligation of joint and several sureties was extinguished by resignation of the office of the representative director after he was employed as the representative director of the defendant company.
However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B had an agreement to terminate the joint and several liability when it withdraws from the position of the representative director, and where the director of the company has entered into a guarantee agreement for the company's obligation of which the amount of debt and the due date are specified, the director who is the guarantor cannot terminate the guarantee agreement unilaterally on the ground of changes in circumstances such as continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da25938 delivered on December 28, 199), unlike the case of continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da25938 delivered on December 28, 199). Since Defendant B's joint and several liability guarantee for
Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.