beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,024,273,118 and KRW 1,820,563,718 among them, from March 21, 2012 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) concluded a credit transaction agreement on April 28, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant credit transaction agreement”) with the Defendant on a 30-time loan from January 27, 2011 to October 30, 2009, and extended 12.9 billion won on the same day to April 28, 2015 with a maturity of 12.9 billion won per annum, 10% per annum, interest rate of 20% per annum, and 1.5 billion won per the same day at overdue interest rate of 20% (hereinafter “instant loan 1”), and additionally leased 1.5 billion won per day with a maturity of 28% per annum, interest rate of 10% per annum, and interest rate of 20% per annum.
(hereinafter “Loan 2 of this case”). (b)
On or after December 18, 2010, the Defendant lost its interest on the instant loan No. 1. As to the instant loan No. 2, the due date expired. As of March 20, 2012, the instant loan No. 1 remains as principal amounting to KRW 12.9 billion, overdue interest amounting to KRW 1,687,187,907, and KRW 20,563,718, overdue interest amounting to KRW 203,709,40.
C. The Nonparty bank was declared bankrupt on August 16, 2012, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee and taken over the instant lawsuit.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 44 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings (the defendant affixed seals to blank documents. However, the non-party bank asserted that it forged Gap evidence Nos. 1 (each loan agreement) and 3 (each loan transaction agreement) in the form of lending Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. However, since there is no dispute that the defendant's seal of the name is based on the defendant's seal, the authenticity of the above document is presumed to be established, the defendant's defense is without merit).
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant excludes part of the loan No. 1 of this case, which is 2,024,273,118 = the maximum debt amount of the real estate owned by the defendant as security, which is part of the loan No. 1 of this case.