대여금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant C and D shall jointly and severally serve as the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on 11,090.
1. Defendant C and Defendant D are married, and Defendant E are their children.
F Around June 2004, F Co., Ltd. lent KRW 7,726,587 to Defendant C at the interest rate of 19% per annum, and Defendant D and E jointly guaranteed the above loan obligations. At the time, Defendant C and D, a person with parental authority, as a minor, entered into a joint and several guarantee contract as the legal representative of Defendant E.
F Co., Ltd. (formerly: G Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Non-Party Savings Bank”) transferred the above loan claims against the Defendants to A Co., Ltd., and the Non-Party Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the payment of the above loan claims, and was sentenced on June 4, 2010 by this Court to “the Defendants jointly and severally paid 11,090,73 won to Non-Party Savings Bank and 7,624,133 won (i.e., 19% per annum from June 9, 2009 to June 1, 2010) and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
Then, on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) finally acquired the above loan claims against the Defendants on the ground that the aforementioned loan claims were transferred before the transfer.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay jointly and severally the aforementioned loan claims to the intervenors with interest of KRW 11,090,733 as well as interest of KRW 7,624,13 as to KRW 19% per annum from June 9, 2009 to June 1, 2010 and interest of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. Defendant E’s assertion and judgment asserted that the joint and several guarantee agreement that Defendant C and D concluded on behalf of Defendant E who was a minor at the time of the above lending is null and void as an act of conflict in interest.
Article 921 (1) of the Civil Act is a person of parental authority who is a legal representative and its person.