beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally 80,000,000 won;
B. Defendant B and C shall be jointly and severally 20,000,000 won and each of the above.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 27, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,000,00 to Defendant B for interest rate of KRW 2% per month and on April 30, 2005. Defendant C and D guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation on the same day.
B. Around early 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to Defendant B and C as of September 5, 2006.
C. Defendant B was up to the time of the instant lawsuit.
As in the same paragraph, 30,000,000 won out of the principal amount of 50,000,000 won was repaid.
[Ground of recognition] between the plaintiff, defendant B, and C: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Voluntary Confession) and defendant D: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, Defendant B and C are the principal debtor, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety, and the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 20,000,000 out of the loan repayment obligation on January 27, 2005, and Defendant B and C jointly and severally as the principal debtor at early 2006 (= Principal KRW 50,000,000 - Principal KRW 30,000,000) and each of the above amounts as to each of the above amounts, from March 27, 2015, the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and from March 26, 2015, from March 26, 2015, the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the full payment date at the annual rate of 20% under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
(1) The defendant D, who borrowed 80,000,000 won from the plaintiff on January 27, 2005 and used 70,000,000 won from the loan borrowed from the plaintiff as of January 27, 2005 and paid 70,000,000 won to the defendant Eul, is not liable. However, as long as the defendant Eul guaranteed the debt of the loan borrowed from the plaintiff, the defendant Eul is jointly and severally liable to pay the loan unpaid to the plaintiff, the above argument is without merit).