beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 560,000,000 won and the period from December 31, 2016 to April 24, 2017.
Reasons
1. Reviewing the determination of the cause of the claim and the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff paid 560 million won in total to the defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company") from November 11, 2014 to August 19, 2015. After then, the defendant company borrowed 560 million won from the plaintiff as of November 14, 2015 to the plaintiff as of August 25, 2015, and issued a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") to the effect that "the defendant company will repay 560 million won to the plaintiff until December 30, 2016," and the defendant C may recognize the fact that it jointly and severally guaranteed the debt under the loan certificate of this case as of May 9, 2016.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally return the above KRW 560 million to the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 560 million and the damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 31, 2016 to April 24, 2017, the service date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The gist of the assertion is not the loan, but the above KRW 560 million, which the Plaintiff asserted as the loan, and is an investment in the business promoted by the Defendant Company, and thus, is not the nature of return.
In addition, the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff requesting the defendant company to prepare it formally in order to show that the plaintiff was instructed from investors and to investors.
B. On the other hand, as argued by the Defendants, even if the above KRW 560 million was not a loan, but an investment loan, if the Defendants agreed to prepare and deliver the certificate of loan in this case to the Plaintiff and return it.