beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 2, 2016 to July 7, 2016.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent to the defendant B the above loans of KRW 10 million on July 16, 2003, KRW 25 million on July 22, 2003, KRW 15 million on July 23, 2003, KRW 25 million on July 23, 2003, KRW 25 million on July 31, 2003, KRW 25 million on July 31, 2003, and KRW 5 million on April 15, 2008, respectively, to the defendant C guaranteed the above loans to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above loans of KRW 72.5 million on July 23, 2003.
In addition, Defendant C purchased 10,000 won each year from 2004 to 2010,000 won from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C is obligated to pay 28,000 won to the Plaintiff.
2. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 5 (including additional serial numbers) of the judgment, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from April 2, 2016 to July 7, 2016, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Plaintiff, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., since the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
I would like to say.
However, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 3 parts of interest to Defendant B.
As to whether a loan was granted to the remainder of KRW 42.5 million, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 (including paper numbers) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff by Defendant C, and whether Defendant C purchased uniform equivalent to KRW 28 million from the Plaintiff.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claim against the defendant B and the claim against the defendant C are all groundless.