대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 30,000,000 and the Defendant Pyeongtaek-dong Training Center.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, according to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the plaintiff lent the above money to the Human Resources Development Institute of Eunpyeong-dong Human Resources by means of remitting 30,000,000 won to the account of the Human Resources Development Institute of Pyeongtaek-dong Human Resources on March 14, 2014, and Defendant B borrowed 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff on May 29, 2014, and paid the borrowed amount to the plaintiff by August 20, 2014. The Eul written statement to the effect that "I confirm that I will be legally responsible for the above amount at the time of the bankruptcy of the Training Institute," and it can be acknowledged the fact that the Development Institute of Pyeongtaek-dong Human Resources was in fact closed on June 17, 2015.
Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, Defendant D is the borrower, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as well as damages for delay of interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day on which each certified copy of payment order was served to the day of full payment.
As the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings was amended and promulgated as of September 25, 2015 and enforced as of October 1, 2015, the Defendants recognized 20% per annum from the day following the date when the Defendants were served the original copy of each payment order until September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and the damages for delay exceeding this limit are dismissed). 2. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as of September 30, 2015.