beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30 million won and 12% per annum from May 31, 2005 to August 21, 2006.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 70 million to Defendant B, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations to Defendant B.
B. In around 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for the payment order of the loans stated in the above paragraph. Accordingly, in the instant case on September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff confirmed that “the Defendants jointly and severally filed with the Plaintiff for the payment order of KRW 70 million and KRW 40 million from May 31, 2005 to August 21, 2006, the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 18% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, KRW 30 million, and KRW 18% per annum from May 31, 2005 to August 21, 2006 to the day of full payment, and each payment order of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to August 21, 2006 to the day of full payment.”
C. From 2009 to 2014, D paid a total of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the Defendants’ obligations.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of prescription period.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won calculated by subtracting 40 million won from the amount of loan 70 million won to the plaintiff who was repaid to the plaintiff and appropriated for the principal (= KRW 70 million - KRW 30 million), and to pay damages for delay calculated at the respective rate of 20% per annum from May 31, 2005 to August 21, 2006 as finalized in the order of transfer payment as the previous payment became final and conclusive.
3. Defendant B’s defense alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff exempted the interest or damages for delay on the loan, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the statement in subparagraph 1 (the above evidence does not include the part to the effect that the Plaintiff exempted the interest or damages for delay).