beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 3, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On December 7, 2011, the Defendants agreed to engage in a business in which profits are accrued after purchasing and operating the Eelcom located in Asan City D.
B. On December 7, 2011, the Defendants jointly borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff on the condition that they would pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, and prepared and issued a cash storage certificate to the Plaintiff to the effect that they would immediately repay the amount to the Plaintiff as soon as they dispose of the eel.
C. The Defendants purchased EM and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name on April 16, 2012, but sold it to F on January 6, 2015, and on March 6, 2015, completed the F’s registration of ownership transfer with respect to EM.
[Ground for recognition] Defendant C: Each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 5-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to defendant B: According to the above basic facts of judgment, the defendants, a joint borrower, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum under the agreement from December 3, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff, as well as from the date of loan.
Defendant C solely borrowed KRW 100,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and it is argued that he is not the borrower. However, according to the description of Party C’s certificate, which is a disposal document duly formed, the Defendant C also stated in the cash custody certificate as the borrower who borrowed KRW 100,00,00 from the Plaintiff, and the seal imprint of the Defendant C is affixed, and the certificate of personal seal impression issued by the Defendant C is also affixed. The Defendant did not present any counter-proof to deny the content of the above disposal document. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.