beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 520,000,000 won and the period from January 1, 201 to May 27, 2016.
Reasons
1. The Defendants continued to borrow money from the Plaintiff on May 7, 2008 due to the commencement of borrowing KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff on and around December 2010, and the principal was paid KRW 600 million. The Defendants agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on December 2, 2010 that “the Defendants jointly and severally agreed to pay the total amount of KRW 600 million up to December 31, 2010,” and thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the leased principal amount of KRW 60 million and damages for delay calculated from January 1, 2011, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that, among the instant loans, KRW 100 million was repaid to the Plaintiff, and that, after setting up a collateral on real estate owned by the Defendants in order to secure the above loan claims, the said real estate was sold by auction, there was no loan to be repaid to the Plaintiff.
B. The plaintiff was paid KRW 80 million by the defendants, so it can be acknowledged that the above KRW 80 million has been paid. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendants paid the above amount in excess of the above amount.
C. In addition, Defendant B’s right to collateral security of KRW 330 million with the maximum debt amount on the G’s land located in G at the time of the possession by the Plaintiff on February 11, 2009, and the right to collateral security of KRW 300 million with the maximum debt amount on the land located in H at the time of the purchase by the Plaintiff, and on the land and the building located in H at the time of the purchase by the Plaintiff, the right to collateral security of KRW 300 million with the maximum debt amount was separately established on January 26, 2011, and the sale of the said real estate by auction may be acknowledged by the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3. However, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received a dividend during each auction procedure, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the claim
Ultimately, the defendants' assertion is justified only for the repayment of the above KRW 80 million, and the remainder is without merit.