beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 245,479,451 as well as KRW 200 million as from July 15, 2014.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent 200 million won to the defendant B on May 2, 2013 at the maturity of payment on June 30, 2013, at the rate of 1% per annum of overdue interest rate, and at the rate of 20% per annum. The defendant C and D are recognized to have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt borrowed to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for an agreement of 1% per month from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 with respect to KRW 200 million and the above KRW 200 million (=20,000,000 x 365 x 0.12,000 x less than won; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the above KRW 200 million from July 1, 2013 to July 14, 2014, as the Plaintiff seeks, to pay the agreed delay damages of KRW 41,534,246 per annum from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 to June 305 x 25,479,405,205, 204, 205, and 205.45% per annum from the date following the due date of repayment to July 14, 2014 (i.e., 2004.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 with respect to the said KRW 200 million. However, as recognized earlier, the agreement rate of 1% per month from May 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 is limited to the above KRW 200 million, and the part in excess is rejected.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant B: (a) borrowed KRW 400 million between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; (b) agreed to complete the registration of creation of a mortgage on three parcels of land, including E, in the same year, if the Plaintiff fails to repay KRW 400 million by June 30, 2013; and (c) on May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff leased only KRW 200 million while requesting the Defendant to establish a collateral, unlike the above agreement; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff could respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.