beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 200,000,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 31, 2012 to February 2, 2016.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of subparagraph 1 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s loaned KRW 200 million to Defendant B on January 30, 2012 as the due date on December 30, 2012. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from December 31, 2012, the following day of the due date to the date of repayment, to the date of this judgment where it is reasonable to dispute over the scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.
The Plaintiff asserted that he had received interest from 5% per month on the above loan and sought payment of interest at 30% per annum from February 28, 2012 within the limit stipulated by the Interest Limitation Act. However, there is no evidence to find that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the interest, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C had jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to borrow funds as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article and filed a claim against Defendant C to repay the borrowed funds as stated in paragraph (1) jointly and severally with Defendant C.
Although there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the defendant C's name, which is the evidence Nos. 1 (k) of the above defendant C, is based on the seal of the above defendant, it is acknowledged that the defendant B affixed the seal of the defendant C to the above loan certificate according to the purport of the whole pleadings. It is insufficient to recognize that the separate evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, and 2 of the above loan certificate has the authority to affix the seal of the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant C guaranteed the defendant C's debt.
Therefore, the plaintiff's argument about defendant C is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.