beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 and Defendant B related thereto were to be from December 17, 2013; Defendant C was to be from January 18, 2014.
Reasons
1. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the plaintiff's cause of action, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the arguments, ① imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 8 months has been imposed for the crime of fraud that the defendant C acquired 85 million won from the plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2007DaMa3733), ② the defendants paid KRW 75 million to the plaintiff on Nov. 1, 2007, and the defendants paid KRW 75 million to the plaintiff on Nov. 2, 2007 to Nov. 1, 2008 (hereinafter "the agreement in this case"), ③ the defendant C was sentenced to suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 8 months, 2 years, and 80 million won in the appellate trial of the above criminal case, and the fact that the defendant C paid the plaintiff up to 200 million won to the plaintiff.
According to the above facts, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from December 17, 2013, the day immediately following the delivery date of the instant complaint, and Defendant C is obligated to pay to each Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 35 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 18, 2014 following the delivery date of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.
2. The defendants' assertion and judgment
A. The Defendants asserted, first of all, that D, the Plaintiff’s agent, repaid the amount of KRW 40 million to the Defendants at the time of the formation of the instant agreement, the remaining KRW 35 million was exempted.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.
B. Next, the defendants have the claims against the defendants under the agreement of this case. The defendants are liable for tort against the defendants.