beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 76,316,680 and KRW 37,039,987 among them, per annum from October 5, 2015 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 13, 201, the Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”) loaned KRW 60,000,000 of general loans to B by stipulating that “60,000,000 per annum: 22.5% per annum, period of loans: 36 months, and delay compensation rate: governed by the Savings Bank and shall be governed by the maximum annual rate of 49% per annum” (hereinafter “instant loan”); and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations.
B. Solomon Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hahap46, and the Plaintiff was appointed from the above court as bankruptcy trustee and comprehensively succeeded to the status of Solomon Savings Bank.
C. As of October 4, 2015, the Plaintiff has a claim for the principal and interest of KRW 76,316,680 in total, including the balance of the principal loaned to the Defendant, KRW 37,039,987, overdue interest, KRW 38,66,728 (applicable to overdue interest rate of KRW 34.5% per annum), and KRW 609,965 in provisional payment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 10 through 16, 19, 20 items, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 76,316,680 of the principal and interest of this case and KRW 37,039,987 of them, delay damages calculated at the rate of 34.5% per annum from October 5, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that, as requested by the mother-friendly C, the loan agreement (only signed on the column of joint and several sureties A's certificate No. 1 and affixed the seal of C in the form of a loan agreement, and the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt cannot be deemed to have been specified in the loan agreement because it is not specified in the loan agreement. Thus, the solomon Savings Bank and the defendant claim that the joint and several sureties agreement is null and void.
Since there is no dispute that the defendant's seal of the loan agreement is based on the seal of the defendant, the entire document is authentic.