대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from April 14, 2020 to the date of full payment.
In light of the purport of the entire argument as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the claim against Defendant D, upon the request of Defendant B, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million in total to Defendant B on February 26, 2019 and March 26, 2019, respectively, KRW 100 million, and Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt on December 12, 2019. Thus, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of KRW 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from April 14, 2020 to the date of complete payment.
Defendant D asserted to the effect that, as long as the sale of the land was not made by an agreement to repay, the payment date has not yet arrived. Thus, according to the evidence No. 2, Defendant D’s joint and several liability for Defendant D at the time of the sale of the above real estate, even though it is recognized that “the fact that Defendant D promised to repay the above real estate preferentially to the Plaintiff without the date of the promise,” the above meaning is interpreted to mean that the sale of the above real estate can be done with priority over the date of promise, and it cannot be deemed that the sale of the said real estate is a condition for the payment of the obligation, and thus, the above assertion is rejected.
2. The part of the claim against Defendant B and C
A. It is as indicated in the reasons for the claim indicated in the separate sheet indicating the claim (Provided, That the “creditor” is deemed to be the “Plaintiff” and the “debtor” to be the “Defendant”). (B) the judgment deeming confession under the applicable legal provisions (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and the said Defendants only submitted a formal objection against the original copy of the payment order, which was served on the original copy of the payment order, and did not thereafter submit a specific written response and did not appear on the date for pleading, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have been led to the confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is with merit.