beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C, and the plaintiff.
(a) 13,771,357 Won; and
(b) to the extent of KRW 66,000,000, 56.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 270,000,000 to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).
(hereinafter “First Loan”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of C under the First Loan up to KRW 324,00,000,000.
The first loan remains 13,771,357 won as the principal is fully repaid.
B. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive passbook loan agreement with C on a fixed rate of KRW 55,000,000, and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 6% per annum, and thereafter provided loans.
(hereinafter “Second Loan”). The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the C’s obligation under the Second Loan up to KRW 66,00,000.
The second loan remains in 48,036,615 won as of April 3, 2018, interest or delay damages, and in total 56,161,286 won.
【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1) the amount of KRW 13,71,357 and KRW 66,00,00,00 of the balance of the first loan and KRW 56,161,286 of the principal of the second loan and KRW 48,036,615 of the principal from April 4, 2018 to June 15, 2018, the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, 6% per annum and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant is not liable for each of the above loans, since the first loan received overdue interest on condition of lump-sum repayment, the second loan was notified that it was subject to the former representative director D and E at the time when the defendant takes office as the representative director C, and thus the defendant is not liable for each of the above loans.
However, the Plaintiff promised to increase the overdue interest in the first loan.
There is no evidence that the defendant promised not to hold the defendant liable for the second loan or the second loan.