beta
Text
1. The Defendants each of the KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from December 18, 2014 to July 8, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the Defendants paid KRW 200,000,000 to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) on November 3, 2014 until December 10, 2014; however, in the event that the payment is not made by the payment date, the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 200,000,000 as compensation for damages until December 17, 2014. The non-party company transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2019, and on August 28, 2019, notified the Defendants of the said transfer and received the notification to the Defendants around that time.
The Plaintiff is jointly and severally demanding that the Defendants pay KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to pay KRW 200,000,000 to the plaintiff who is the transferee pursuant to the above agreement.
However, in cases where there are several obligors pursuant to Article 408 of the Civil Act, each obligor shall bear the obligation at an equal rate unless there is any special declaration of intention, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants jointly and severally assumed the obligation to compensate for the damages. Therefore, the Defendants should be deemed to share the aforementioned obligation at an equal rate, i.e., one-half.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff only the amount of KRW 100,000 per annum from December 18, 2014, which is the day following the due date, to the extent that the Defendants’ disputes over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.