beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 224,88,979 and KRW 92,924,819 among them. From June 29, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 30, 2003, Defendant A entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Korea Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (former Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.) as follows, and Defendant B and C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant A’s obligations under the said credit transaction agreement.
C B
B. After June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a claim based on the credit transaction agreement against Defendant A from the Korea Savings Bank, and the transfer of the claim was notified to the above Defendant around February 29, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, as of June 28, 2015, the amount of the above claim against Defendant A is KRW 224,88,979 (interest or delay damages up to May 30, 2013, KRW 99,114,601, and KRW 32,849,559 from May 31, 2013 to June 28, 2015: Provided, That the damages for delay from May 31, 2013 to June 28, 2015 at the rate of KRW 17% per annum as sought by the Plaintiff within the limit of 25% per annum of delay damages under the foregoing agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum as requested by the Plaintiff within the limit of 25% per annum from June 29, 2015 to the day of full payment, with respect to the above KRW 224,88,979 and the principal amount of KRW 92,924,819, which is the principal amount.
In regard to this, Defendant A, a principal loaner and a user of loan is Defendant C, a former spouse, and the former spouse, and Defendant A changed the name of the principal by the request of Defendant C. As such, Defendant A claims against Defendant A were asserted to be groundless. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no special circumstance even if Defendant A changed the name of the loan, as alleged in the domestic affairs.