beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: 42,196,05 won and 20,495,430 won among them, from May 11, 2006 to May 2006.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 1 and 2 of the facts acknowledged as Gap.
1) Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. is Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd) on August 28, 1998.
The basic terms and conditions of banking credit transactions shall apply with respect to the Defendant Company, and the amount of 20 million won due shall be set on August 28, 1999 (hereinafter this case’s loan) shall be extended to the Defendant Company.
(2) Defendant B guaranteed the instant loan obligation within the limit of KRW 26 million.2) Defendant B guaranteed the instant loan obligation on March 30, 2002 by the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and Defendant B transferred the instant loan obligation to the Plaintiff in succession, on February 14, 2003, to the Korea Finance Primary Asset-Backed Company, to the Korea Finance Primary Asset-Backed Company, and to the Korea Development Bank on June 15, 201, to the Plaintiff.
3) The Promotion Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on November 7, 2006 against the Seoul Central District Court 2006da317749, which sought the payment of the instant loan. 4) The above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2006, stating that the Defendant Company: (a) KRW 42,196,05; (b) KRW 42,495; and (c) KRW 20,430 from May 11, 2006 to September 1, 2006; and (c) KRW 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and (d) Defendant B jointly and severally with the Defendant Company to pay KRW 26,00,00,000 among the above amounts.
B. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case has the interest in litigation for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the Defendants are obligated to pay the said judgment to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, in accordance with the above final judgment
2. As alleged by the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company and the employees in charge of loan of the Gyeongnam Bank set up a passbook in the name of the Defendant Company when the stocks of the Bank do not reach the par value, and set aside 20 million won as a share purchase amount, and the share price above par value.