beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 and the period from June 24, 2004 to August 23, 2004.
Reasons
1. Indication of claim;
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 100,000 on April 26, 1996 from Han Bank (the previous trade name: Seoul Bank; hereinafter “I Bank”); and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt amounting to KRW 140,00,000 on the guarantee limit; ② Defendant B loaned KRW 100,000,000 on May 17, 1996; and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt amounting to KRW 13,00,000,000 on the guarantee limit; ③ Defendant B loaned the above debt amounting to KRW 65,00,000 on July 29, 196; ④ Defendant B loaned the above debt amount to KRW 5,00,000 on August 25, 1996; and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the guarantee limit with KRW 65,500,000.
In addition, on February 21, 1998, Defendant A borrowed KRW 1,908,906,00 from the National Bank of Korea (Korea Housing and Commercial Bank, Korea Housing and Commercial Bank, hereinafter “National Bank”), and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed this.
B. In September 17, 1999, the Plaintiff received each of the above loans from the National Bank on September 30, 1998 from the Han Bank, and received each of the above loans from the Defendants. Han Bank notified the Defendants on September 27, 1999, while Han Bank notified the Defendants on November 27, 1998.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the claim for the transfer money, and received a favorable judgment as to the claim for the loans related to Han Bank as the court below 2004Gahap71466 on March 29, 2005 (as to the Defendant Company A, as stated in Section 2. A., and as to the Defendant Company B, as to the KRW 250,356,161 among them, and damages for delay as described in Section 2.b., as to the Defendant Company B), and as to the national bank-related loan claims, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment on December 24, 2004 by this court 204Gahap58401.
(3,015,742,194 won and damages for delay as described in Paragraph (1) of this Article. The above decisions became final and conclusive around that time.
The plaintiff's purpose is to interrupt the prescription of the claims established by the above decisions.