대여금등
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 249,378,522 and KRW 197,00,000 among them, from April 2, 2015 to April 2, 2015.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Co., Ltd.") on October 12, 2012 for corporate loan loans (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case") with a maximum amount of 200,00,000 won, and as of October 14, 2013 on October 14, 2013 (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case") < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 240, Oct. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2400, Oct. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 25077, Apr. 2, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26817, Oct. 14, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26813, Apr. 2, 2015>
Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 249,378,52 of the principal and interest as the principal debtor and KRW 197,00,000 of the principal among them, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum under the agreement from April 2, 2015 to September 10, 2015, which is the final service date of the written application for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, as the principal debtor, until September 10, 2015, 20% per annum from September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
Defendant B is a joint and several surety for the Plaintiff and is jointly and severally liable to pay the said money within the limit of KRW 240,000,000 with the Defendant Company.
The Defendants asserted that, upon the request of the Postal Development Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff concluded the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff and delivered all the borrowed money to the Postal Development Co., Ltd., and that, at the time, the Plaintiff was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendants did not bear obligations under the instant
However, there is no evidence supporting the above argument, and the Defendants asserted.