대여금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 11,566,625 to the Plaintiff.
3. Action.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 12, 2012, Defendant A entered into an automobile construction machinery loan agreement with the more Bable Savings Bank (hereinafter “Sable Savings Bank”) to obtain a loan of KRW 70 million at an annual interest rate of 17.9% (hereinafter “instant loan”). Defendant B, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations within the limit of KRW 91 million on the same day.
B. Defendant A has delayed the payment of the instant loan and lost the benefit of January 10, 2013. The instant loan has been partially repaid on two occasions as indicated below, and the interest rate of KRW 11,56,625 as of August 31, 2015 remains.
C. The non-party savings bank was declared bankrupt and was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,566,625 of the balance of the instant loan.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that, as the proceeds of the instant loan were paid out of KRW 35 million, part of the instant loan was paid out, and the secured real estate for the instant loan was sold by auction, KRW 40 million was repaid in full. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ assertion that: (a) the proceeds of the instant loan were KRW 35 million on December 2, 2014, KRW 782,109, and KRW 41,403,980 on December 30, 2014; and (b) the proceeds of the auction of real estate was appropriated for the provisional payment of the instant loan, principal, or interest, KRW 11,566,625 as of August 31, 2015; and (c) as seen earlier, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be accepted in its entirety with merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is unfair.