대여금
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 1,00,000,000 and KRW 990,256,834 among them to the Plaintiff from December 30, 2016.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including a serial number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd.") on February 24, 2016 entered into a credit transaction agreement with the defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Co., Ltd.") under the joint and several guarantee of the defendant B, a representative of the defendant Co., Ltd., to provide the land as security and to obtain a loan within the limit of two billion won from the plaintiff (hereinafter "the loan agreement of this case"), and the repayment period is three months from the date of the execution of the individual loan, the overdue interest rate is set at 25% per annum. Under the loan agreement of this case, the plaintiff Co., Ltd. borrowed the principal amount of KRW 1,783,00,000 by executing six separate loans from August 26, 2016 to August 31, 2016, the total amount of each of the loan of this case can be recognized as follows.
According to the above facts, since each repayment period stipulated in the loan agreement of this case has expired with respect to each of the above individual loans, Defendant B, a joint and several surety of the defendant company and the defendant company, a joint and several surety, has a duty to jointly pay 1,783,00,000 won for the plaintiff (i.e., the total principal amount of KRW 1,783,00,000,000,000 for the plaintiff (i.e., 990,256,83,166 won for the above overdue interest of KRW 990,256,834), and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% for the principal amount from December 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.
2. As to the determination of the defendants' defense, the defendant company was established by the representative E of Nonparty D, who led the land mortgage loan fraud, on the ground that the defendant Eul was the representative director in the form of the defendant B, and the actual operation of the company was entrusted to E, and all of the circumstances that the loan in this case was actually conducted to D or E.