구상금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A and Defendant B jointly and severally share KRW 280,207,263 and KRW 277,280,753 among them.
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and Defendant B
(a) The following facts shall be admitted by each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), unless there is no clear dispute between the Parties or recognized by the Parties:
(1) The Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement on April 11, 201 for Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”), and Defendant A borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from Hana Bank on the basis of such agreement. On April 9, 2013, the occurrence of a guarantee accident under which Defendant A would lose the benefit of time, and the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 277,280,753 to Han Bank on August 14, 2013.
In addition, according to the above credit guarantee agreement, Defendant A had to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,155,310 of advance payment, and penalty for attempted breach of contract amounting to KRW 1,770,90 of advance payment.
(2) Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s liability for indemnity against the Plaintiff under the aforementioned credit guarantee agreement.
B. Therefore, Defendant A and Defendant B are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 280,207,263 (=277,280,753 of substitute payment of KRW 1,155,310 of substitute payment of KRW 1,770,90 of substitute payment of KRW 1,770,750 of substitute payment of KRW 277,280,753 of the substitute payment of KRW 277,280,753 of the substitute payment of KRW 277,27,280 of the substitute payment date of August 14, 2013, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from August 23, 2014, 12% per annum, and delay damages calculated by 20% per annum as stipulated
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)’s assertion of the cause of selective claim by the Plaintiff constitutes ① a company established to escape the Defendant’s obligation, and constitutes an abuse of corporate personality, and thus, bears the same obligation as that of the Defendant A, and ② as the transferor, as a transferee of business who belongs to his trade name, bears the obligation to be borne by the Plaintiff due to business cause.
(b) A, in fact, of recognition.