beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable:
A. As regards Plaintiff A, KRW 438,295,081 and its KRW 350,000,000 among them, April 1, 2012
Reasons
1. The Plaintiffs asserted that they borrowed KRW 750 million to the Defendants (Plaintiff A, KRW 350 million, Plaintiff B, KRW 400 million) from April 15, 2011 to March 31, 2012, KRW 300 million, interest rate of KRW 300 million, and overdue interest rate of KRW 9% per annum.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff A for a total of KRW 490 million (= KRW 350 million + KRW 140 million + KRW 300 million x 3.5/7.5). The Plaintiff B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 560 million (= KRW 400 million x KRW 160 million (= KRW 300 million x 4/7.5) and damages for delay on each of the amounts.
2. Determination on the leased principal and damages for delay
A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 19, and 20 (including virtual numbers) as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiffs extended a total of KRW 740 million to the defendant D, as shown in the loan amount of the plaintiffs as shown in attached Table 1, KRW 750 million ( KRW 350 million to the plaintiff A, KRW 390 million to the plaintiff B, KRW 390 million to the defendant as of March 31, 2012, and KRW 9% per annum (hereinafter referred to as the "loan of this case").
Furthermore, we examine whether Defendant E and F are the borrower of the instant loan.
According to the statement No. 1, the fact that the name of Defendant D (G) is named Defendant D (hereinafter “G”) in the borrower column of the loan loan certificate of this case is recognized only as the borrower, but there is no dispute between the parties.
However, the following circumstances, namely, Defendant E and F, as Defendant D’s children prior to the instant lending, established a plan to implement a new house-building project at the Namyang-si, South-si prior to the instant lending, which could be recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in the above evidence, Gap’s evidence, and evidence Nos. 5 and 12, and the Defendant E and F appears to have requested the Plaintiffs to lend the relevant funds through Defendant D, her mother, due to the shortage of funds to purchase the site for the relevant project. [Defendant F is from the Prosecutor’s investigation (Evidence No.