beta
Text
Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 and KRW 40,000 among them, Defendant B Co., Ltd. on January 2, 2015.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
C [Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”)]
A) Around November 12, 2010, the representative director of the company prepared and issued a receipt stating that the Plaintiff will repay KRW 50,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) plus interest KRW 10,000,000, which he received, to the Plaintiff by the end of January 2011.
On June 3, 2013, Defendant B prepared and delivered a confirmation document stating that the interest will be paid in addition to the amount of KRW 70,000,000,00, as the Plaintiff failed to perform the obligation under paragraph (1).
The Defendants, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on January 24, 2014, jointly and severally liable by the Defendants, as the repayment of the instant loan is delayed, and transferred KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the dividend claims owned by Defendant Busan Sea Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Sea Construction”).
[Ground] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the above certificate of assignment of claims is presumed to have been premised on the premise that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 (the defendants did not specifically dispute this issue). Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 80,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the loan of this case sought by the plaintiff among these amounts, as of the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, as for the defendant Eul from November 21, 2015 to November 20, 2015, and the construction of Busan Sea shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 20, 2015 to the day of full payment.
(1) From October 1, 2015, since the statutory interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was changed to 15% per annum, the part contrary thereto is dismissed). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all the Justices