대여금
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 29,980,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and Defendant B from April 1, 2007 until May 20, 2016.
If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 added the purport of the whole pleadings, defendant Eul shall pay 36,980,000 won to the plaintiff on March 10, 2007, but it shall pay 19,303,000 won to the plaintiff on March 31, 2007 until July 26, 2007, and it shall pay 17,67,000 won to the plaintiff on July 26, 2007, and it shall prepare and deliver a certificate of borrowing with a stipulation that if the payment date is neglected, it shall pay the whole amount of the debt plus interest at an annual rate of 60%, and it shall be recognized that defendant Eul prepared and issued a guarantee certificate to the effect that defendant Eul guaranteed the obligation to the plaintiff on the same day.
The Plaintiff was paid KRW 7,00,000 out of the above KRW 36,980,000 by the Defendants.
Therefore, the Defendants jointly (Defendant B is the principal obligor’s status, Defendant C is the guarantor’s status) and the remaining amount of KRW 29,980,000 from April 1, 2007, following the date when the Defendants neglected the due date and lost the benefit of time; Defendant B is clearly recorded that it was the date when the copy of the complaint of this case was served; Defendant C is the date when the copy of the complaint of this case was served; Defendant C is clearly written; and Defendant C is the date when the copy of the complaint of this case was served. From April 5, 2016 to the date when the copy of the complaint of this case was served; Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 24% per annum to the Plaintiff within the scope of the above agreed interest rate; and from the following day to the date of full payment.
The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Plaintiff under the premise that the Defendant C was jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Plaintiff. However, according to the statement in the evidence No. 1-2, there is no indication that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation, and there is no other evidence to recognize that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant C’s obligation beyond a simple guarantee.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is to the extent that the Defendants seek to jointly pay the amount of the claim.