beta
Text
Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 350,00,000 and KRW 300,000 among them, from November 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) on March 20, 2018.
(2) On April 11, 2018, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million per annum (payment in 5 million per month) and July 20, 2018 (payment in 500,000 per annum) with interest rate of KRW 24% per annum on April 11, 2018 (payment in 100,000 per month) and the due date of payment on July 20, 2018.
3) Defendant C Co., Ltd., E, F, and C were mutually changed in sequence (hereinafter “Defendant C”).
(2) At the time of each of the above loans, Defendant D guaranteed each of the above loans to the Plaintiff by Defendant B. [Grounds for recognition] Defendant B: the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the virtual number, the entries in Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings / Defendant C, and D: Confession
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 350 million and KRW 300 million, 20% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of KRW 5 million from November 20, 2018 to the date of full payment, and 5 million from October 10, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the agreed interest rate of KRW 24% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of KRW 35 million from October 10, 2018 to the date of full payment.
2. Defendant B, on November 6, 2018, asserted that Defendant B paid all the borrowed amount of KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the judgment on Defendant B’s defense was made.
In light of the evidence evidence No. 2, Defendant B’s substitute table, “The date of November 6, 2018, A Loan Class A (350,000,000)” and “11-06 A Loan Class A (350,000,000)” can be acknowledged respectively in Defendant B’s customer’s customer ledger. However, unless it is supported by objective financial transaction data, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B’s substitute loan was fully repaid.
Therefore, it is possible to trust the contents of the above Customer Director.