beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the primary claim against the defendant B and the claim against the defendant C are as follows:
Reasons
1. The plaintiff at the trial of the first instance against the defendant B in the first instance, and jointly and severally with the defendant C in the same manner as the above main claim. The court of first instance accepted the defendants' offset defense against the defendant B and dismissed part of the claim against the defendant C, and accepted the part of the conjunctive claim against the defendant B in relation to the nine million won among the conjunctive claim against the defendant B and dismissed the remainder.
With respect to this, the Plaintiff appealed to the primary claim against the Defendant B and the claim against the Defendant C, while the amount of the leased principal and the damages for delay of the agreement were erroneously determined, the Plaintiff filed an appeal by seeking KRW 15,35,35 as stated in the purport of the appeal, and there is no appeal against the part of the conjunctive claim against the Defendant B or the claim against the Codefendant D in the first instance trial. Therefore, the scope of the trial decision is limited to the primary claim against the Defendant B and the propriety of the claim against the Defendant C.
2. Determination
A. On December 17, 2015, when the Plaintiff delayed repayment of the principal or interest, 14 million won due date (the same shall apply to the repayment of interest), 3% per annum of May 30, 2016, and when delay in repayment of the principal or interest, the Plaintiff lent the delayed principal or interest at the rate of 20% per annum to the Defendants by determining that the delayed principal or interest shall be paid for the delayed principal or interest pursuant to the purport of the statement of evidence No. 1 and all pleadings. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14 million and interest and delay delay damages, barring any special circumstances.
B. Determination 1 on the defense against set-off objection 1) The Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties of the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff is a general architect office company (hereinafter “non-party company”).
The Defendants borrowed KRW 100,000,000, and thereafter, they paid the above KRW 100,000 by subrogation.