beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable for KRW 310,000,000 and KRW 170,000,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, C, D, F, G, and H
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(However, the part claiming damages for delay of 60% per annum or 36% per annum for principal is deemed to seek damages for delay of 30% per annum). (b)
(1) Defendants B, C, D, F, and G corporation: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act (in the case of Confession), Defendant H: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (in the case of service by public notice)
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E
A. The facts of recognition (1) on April 14, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 120,000,000 to Defendant B on a set of 5% on April 15, 2004 and on the basis of interest rate, and Defendant E and Defendant C, D, F, and G Co., Ltd are jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the above borrowed amount to the Plaintiff on the same day.
(2) The Plaintiff and the said Defendants notarized the above loan certificate as the 6786th of October 18, 2004 by Ministry of Justice No. 6786, such as the Fair and General Law Office, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant E is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 30% per annum as stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act from April 15, 2004 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.
(2) On this basis, Defendant E has a defense that the Plaintiff exempted Defendant E from the joint and several debt obligations, and Defendant E does not have any obligation to pay the above money to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff denies the establishment of the entire document without recognizing the identity of the seal as to the certificate (No. 1; hereinafter “instant certificate”) cited by Defendant E as evidence for the exemption of debt, and thus, Defendant E denies is responsible for proving the authenticity of the document, and the testimony by Defendant E is alone.