beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, and Defendant B, from July 12, 2018, with respect to KRW 1,176,912,174 and KRW 654,175,906.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. In fact, on December 20, 2013, Defendant B borrowed KRW 900 million from the Plaintiff as “6.3% per annum on November 20, 2014, the expiration date of the credit period, and 16.3% per annum (Article 3(5) of the Framework Act on Credit Transactions) at the maximum of the damages rate for delay until the expiration date of the credit period.” (2) On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 237,540,636 in the case of a compulsory auction on real estate auction, which is an auction case on real estate owned by Defendant B.
3) As of July 11, 2018, the principal and interest obligations based on the above loan extended to the Plaintiff by Defendant B are KRW 654,175,906, the total amount of principal and interest or damages for delay 522,736,268, the total amount of KRW 1,176,912,174, which is the basis for recognition) as of July 11, 2018.
B. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any other circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 16.3% per annum, which is the agreed delay damages rate, from July 12, 2018 to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment of the principal amount of the above loan amounting to KRW 1,176,912,174, and the principal amount of KRW 654,175,906.
C. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)
(2) Although Defendant B merely received KRW 900 million from the Plaintiff and did not receive the said money, the above circumstance alone does not interfere with accepting the claim of this case. Therefore, the above argument is without merit. (2) At the time of the above loan, Defendant Company’s representative director was not H, and (2) Defendant Company’s contract related to construction submitted to the Plaintiff was false documents. However, the above circumstance alone does not interfere with accepting the claim of this case.
Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
3. At the time of the above loan, Defendant B provided by Defendant B.