대여금
1. Defendant B’s KRW 60 million and its relation to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from July 6, 2005 to March 31, 2016.
1. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on July 5, 2005, and KRW 13 million on July 6, 2005, by paying KRW 81.5 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendants, the representative director of D, jointly issue promissory notes with D and KRW 150 million, KRW 150 million, and KRW 150 million, and KRW 100,000,000, KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the instant loan and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
3. First of all, Defendant B’s defenses that Defendant C partially repaid to Defendant C, and thus, Defendant C’s repayment of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2008 is without dispute between the parties. It is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the Defendants and D, and the time and amount the Defendant C repaid under the bankruptcy of D, etc., in light of the relationship between the Defendants and D, and the time and amount the Defendant C repaid under the bankruptcy of D, etc., the amount of KRW 40 million paid by Defendant C to cover the repayment of the principal of the instant loan.
Then, Defendant C has a defense that the obligation of this case was exempted by the court upon filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption from the court. Accordingly, according to the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant C filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Seoul Central District Court under 2013Hadan1543 and filed a petition for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court under 2013Ha1543 and received a petition for immunity from the above court on June 25, 2013 and a petition for immunity from the above court on August 30, 2013, and the above immunity becomes final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the aforementioned Defendant’s defense is well-grounded.
4. Accordingly, Defendant B’s assertion as to the existence or scope of the obligation of implementation of the instant case from July 6, 2005, which was the date of the final loan to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 100 million - KRW 40 million) and its final loan to the Plaintiff.