beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 143,556,015 and KRW 133,461,90 among them, from June 13, 2015.
Reasons
1. Following the facts of recognition may be recognized by adding together the purpose of the entire pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the loan amount of KRW 195,00,000, the loan interest rate of KRW 10.5% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 24% per annum to Defendant A, respectively. On December 20, 2018, the Plaintiff provided a loan for installment financing by making an agreement to pay the loan principal and interest in installments by December 20, 20
B. Defendant B guaranteed Defendant A’s debt against the Plaintiff on the same day.
C. From January 20, 2015, Defendant A was unable to repay the principal and interest of loans, thereby losing the benefit of time. As of June 12, 2015, Defendant A remains at KRW 143,556,015 (including the principal and interest of loans) as of June 12, 2015.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 143,56,015 as well as the interest rate of KRW 133,461,90 as to the principal of the loan and interest of KRW 133,461,90 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from June 13, 2015 to the date
B. As to this, the Defendants argued to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjustifiable because they were aware of this fact, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s legal effect following the above loan between the Defendants belongs to C, the actual borrower, and that the Defendants agreed or understood to not impose a debt burden on C, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.
C. In addition, the Defendants asserted that they returned the automobile purchased through the above automobile financing loan in kind and partially repaid the loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that they paid the loan in excess of the balance of the principal and interest of the loan as seen above. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is justified.