beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 66,191,325 and KRW 24,00,000 among them, Defendant B from March 11, 2015.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition: (a) Defendant A received a loan of KRW 30,000,00 from the Yangyangdong community credit cooperative on February 12, 2003 under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant loan”); (b) on March 12, 2007, the above credit cooperative transferred the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Federation of Korea Federation of Korea; and (c) on April 18, 2014, the Federation of Korea Federation of Korea transferred the instant loan to the Plaintiff again on April 18, 2014, the agent of the above credit cooperative, the first transferor, as the second transferor, notified the Defendant of the transfer of each credit; and (c) on December 1, 2014, the principal and interest of the instant loan of KRW 24,000,000, the sum of interest and delayed damages as of December 1, 2014, based on the overall evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 1251 and evidence No. 51.
2. Determination
A. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the payment order of KRW 66,191,325 and KRW 24,00,00 of the principal of the instant loan and KRW 24,00,000 as of March 11, 2015, Defendant B is liable to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 19, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that he cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that he lent his name to a large industry development corporation, and a joint and several surety was established on the above loan.
However, according to the above evidence, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the circumstances that deny the authenticity of the establishment, such as the signature and seal of Defendant B in the joint guarantor column of the loan transaction agreement of this case, and that it was forged, Defendant B shall be liable for the joint guarantor according to the loan transaction agreement of this case unless there is any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.