대여금
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,842,421 as well as KRW 36,228,643 among them, from May 29, 2015.
1. On October 10, 2013, Defendant A Co., Ltd. concluded an enterprise-general loan agreement with the effect that the Plaintiff and 40,000,000 won shall be withdrawn and repaid within the limit of interest per annum, and that the Defendant A shall comply with the rate of 7.21% per annum, October 10, 2014, and compensation for delay at an interest rate of up to 17% per annum as determined by the Plaintiff. Defendant B guaranteed an obligation under the loan agreement within the limit of 48,00,000 won.
Although Defendant A did not repay the loan amount in excess of the loan limit, Defendant A lost the benefit of time due to the failure to pay the loan amount. On May 28, 2015, the principal amount of the standard loan amount of KRW 36,228,643 and interest KRW 3,613,778 were in arrears.
[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, the purport of the entire pleadings as to the defendants shall be jointly and severally paid to the plaintiff 39,842,421 won of the principal and interest of loan and 36,228,643 won of the principal and interest of the loan, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, but defendant B shall be liable to pay within the limit of 48,00,000 won which is the limit
2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants did not use the loans individually, but used them by Defendant B, and Defendant B agreed to sell the company to Defendant B, who is a partner, to be liable for the said loans. The Defendants asserted to the purport that C should be liable for the said loans, as there is a fact that C paid KRW 3,700,000 on April 17, 2015.
According to the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff appropriated the amount of KRW 3,700,000 on April 17, 2015 as principal and claimed the remainder of principal and interest after appropriating it as principal. As long as the Defendants concluded a loan contract and limited collateral guarantee contract with the Plaintiff, even if they agreed with the Defendant B as to whether they are responsible for the loan, this cannot be set up against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.