beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally with Nonparty C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,673,880 as well as the full payment from January 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1 and 2, and witness evidence No. D's testimony, based on the whole purport of the pleadings.
Upon introduction by the Defendants, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100,000,000 to C on December 9, 2009, respectively, with the interest rate of KRW 7.3% per annum and interest rate of delayed interest rate of KRW 18% on December 9, 2012.
B. On January 22, 2012, the Defendants promised to pay to the Plaintiff the loan principal that C has failed to pay.
C. On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff recovered some of the claims against the secured real estate owned by C on January 27, 2012, and received KRW 7,00,000 from the Defendants, but at the end, did not receive the loan principal amounting to KRW 49,673,880, and delay damages from June 29, 2012.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable with C to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum with C within the limit of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 21, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff, as agreed on January 22, 2012.
B. As to this, Defendant B asserted that: (a) as the Plaintiff’s employee D needed for audit and inspection, only prepared the evidence No. 3 (non-performance of loan prohibition) by making himself/herself responsible only formally; and (b) there is no fact that he/she is responsible for C’s loan; (c) however, the testimony by the witness D alone is insufficient to recognize the above Defendant’s assertion; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.