대여금
1. Defendant C’s KRW 80,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 31, 2014 to January 22, 2015, and the following.
There is no dispute between the claimant parties to the claim against the defendant C, or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff set the amount of KRW 80,000,000 as the construction fund for new construction of the Nam-gu D and E ground loan to the defendant C on December 19, 2013 as the due date for payment and the interest rate of 36% per annum.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80 million and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 31, 2014, which is the service date of the original copy of the payment order, from January 22, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the above loan with Defendant C.
In light of the aforementioned evidence, Defendant B, the owner of the building of the aforementioned loan construction project, is recognized as having completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the said two parcels owned by himself/herself, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million on December 20, 2013, Defendant B, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.
However, Defendant B borrowed the above construction fund from the Plaintiff.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above loans owed by Defendant C were jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C, but only it appears that Defendant B, the owner of the building, offered the above land as security with respect to the above loans owed by Defendant C.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument about defendant B is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the defendant C is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.