양수금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to KRW 637,148,00 and KRW 360,00,00 among the costs, Defendant A Co., Ltd., from April 28, 2017.
1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the respective descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the loan repayment obligation Gap and the purport of the entire pleadings.
(1) On July 20, 2010, the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Agricultural Cooperative Federation”) set forth 400,000,000 won in Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”, and omitted the entry of “Co., Ltd.”) as the repayment date on October 20, 2010, the annual interest rate of 9.54%, and delay damages rate of 15%.
Defendant B, together with C and D, guaranteed the Defendant A’s above loans to the extent of KRW 480,000,000.
② On June 18, 2015, the NongHyup Bank (the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation divided and newly incorporated a financial business sector, and comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations regarding the instant loans; hereinafter collectively referred to as “ NongHyup Bank”) transferred the instant loans to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendants of the transfer of the instant loans around that time.
③ The principal and interest of the instant loan as of April 27, 2017 are KRW 637,148,007 (= Principal KRW 360,000,000 and damages for delay).
Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 28, 2017 to the date of full payment with respect to the principal and interest of KRW 637,148,007 and the principal of KRW 360,00,000. Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with Defendant A to pay KRW 480,000,000, which is the maximum amount of collateral guarantee.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the NongHyup Bank, a summary of the assertion, is the E business (hereinafter “instant business”).
In order to avoid the limitation on the lending limit to the same person while lending approximately KRW 40 billion to the F, the defendant A was loans bypassing to the debtor only with the intention of lending to F, etc. in fact.
Therefore, since the loan agreement of this case is invalid as it constitutes a false conspiracy mark, it can be deemed that the defendants are liable to pay the loan.