beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 15,50,000, and Defendant B and C with respect thereto from December 21, 2013, and Defendant D with respect thereto.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence No. 1-1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and witness Eul's testimony, the defendant Eul agreed that the defendant Eul supplied bending, etc. from the plaintiff Eul to pay 100,550,000 won to the plaintiff as the price of the goods unpaid to the plaintiff by December 25, 2011. At that time, the defendant Eul and Eul secured the defendant Eul's joint and several liability, and thereafter the plaintiff borrowed KRW 85,00,000 from Eul on February 10, 2012, the defendant Eul borrowed KRW 185,00,000 including the plaintiff's above borrowed money, and prepared a notarial deed, 85,000,000 won in lieu of the plaintiff's above borrowed money, and made a monetary loan for consumption, the above 85,000 won in exchange for the plaintiff's goods.
According to the above facts, Defendant B is the principal debtor, barring any special circumstance, and Defendant C and D are jointly and severally and severally and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,50,000 (=100,550,000 - 85,000,000) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 4, 2014 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to Defendant B and C’s assertion
A. As to this, Defendant B and C did not have calculated the amount of KRW 85 million between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as above, but rather, Defendant B borrowed KRW 200 million from E and deducted KRW 15 million per annum 30% interest per annum for KRW 200 million, and Defendant B incurred KRW 85 million among them, and calculated that Defendant B and the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods. However, the above statement alone is based on the evidence No. 7.