beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 900,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 3, 2008 to November 2, 2008.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From November 2007, the United Nations Es. Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “UNFCCC”) borrowed money from the Plaintiff and operated its business.
B. On May 2, 2008, if the United Nations E.S. Industrial Development extended additional loans of KRW 165 million to the Plaintiff, the said amount was determined as KRW 900,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff around that time. The said amount was repaid until September 2, 2008, but if the principal and interest are not repaid on the due date, the due date was extended by two months and the interest was paid at 10%. Accordingly, the Plaintiff wired KRW 165,00,000 to the development of the United Nations E.S. Industry.
C. On May 2, 2008, the development of the United Nations E.S. industry issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note at the Plaintiff’s face value of KRW 900 million and due date September 2, 2008, using the UNS Industry Development Head Office at the place of issuance. D.
C and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the principal and interest of the above loan that UNS Industry Development bears to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “this case’s joint and several sureties contract”). 【No ground for recognition” has any dispute, entry in Gap’s 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The defendant's decision on this safety defense is the plaintiff D, E, and F (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") to lend KRW 900 million to the United Nations E, and since the agreement on the collection of the loan was reached by the plaintiff Eul to sell the secured land and repay the loan with the amount, and the plaintiff et al. and three other parties were not to file a lawsuit against the defendant et al., the plaintiff's defense of safety that the lawsuit in this case should be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit against the above non-litigation agreement. Thus, since there is no evidence to prove that there was the non-litigation agreement as argued by the defendant, the above safety defense by the defendant is without merit.
3. The basis for the determination of the cause of the claim.