beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,665,587 and KRW 29,929,975 among them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 16, 2013, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff, setting the credit guarantee limit on the same day as KRW 36,00,000,000 for corporate driving and credit period maturity: July 16, 2014 (Extension until July 16, 2016): The interest rate: 5.42% for the market price per annum, 5.42% for the interest rate for delay: 17% per annum (it shall be changed from February 11, 2015 to 15% per annum). Defendant B provided a joint and several surety obligation to the Plaintiff by setting the guarantee limit as KRW 36,00,00 for the same day.
B. On or after July 16, 2016, Defendant Company lost the benefit of time due to the delayed payment of the loan obligations under the instant agreement. As of September 19, 2016, the principal and interest of the said loan obligations as of September 19, 2016 are KRW 30,65,587 (= principal principal interest at KRW 29,929,975, interest rate at KRW 725,612).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay the total amount of KRW 30,655,587, and the principal amount of KRW 29,929,975, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the agreed damages for delay, from September 20, 2016 to the date of full payment, from September 20, 2016, and Defendant B is liable to pay them within the limit of KRW 36,00,000.
3. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the Gwangju District Court 2016da26518 applied for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, the Defendant would repay the claim for loans under the instant agreement according to the said procedures.
In a case where a lawsuit on individual rehabilitation claims has already been filed prior to the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013; 201Da42878, Sept. 12, 2013).