beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,819,220 as well as KRW 54,426,20 as well as KRW 54,426,201.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 to No. 6 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that: (a) on September 30, 2012 under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant B and C, the Bank of E-In-House Savings (hereinafter “Saving Bank”) agreed to pay the principal and interest of KRW 70 million to Defendant A in installments during the loan period of KRW 17.9% per annum (in a year, 24% per annum); (b) on November 20, 2014, the Savings Bank transferred the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff on April 20, 2015, and thereafter notified the Defendants thereof at that time; and (c) on April 20, 2015, the principal and interest of the loan amount of KRW 54,426,201, interest rate of KRW 16,393,019.
According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 70,819,220 (=the principal amount of KRW 54,426,201 plus interest of KRW 16,393,019) and damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from April 21, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants: (a) borrowed KRW 70 million from a savings bank in order to purchase a vehicle; (b) received only KRW 22,432,013 from the savings bank; and (c) demanded D to repay the existing loans to Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. in the remainder of KRW 47,532,987; (d) but D did not repay the existing loans; (b) therefore, Defendant A asserted that the funds borrowed from the savings bank were KRW 22,432,013; and (c) thus, Defendant A’s assertion that the funds borrowed from the savings bank were fully repaid, and therefore, it is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A’s loans were KRW 22,432,013 solely on account of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.