beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 56,757,647 and KRW 35,925,393 among them, 15% per annum from March 10, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B, on January 29, 2014, borrowed 48 million won from the non-SP Capital Co., Ltd. at an annual interest rate of 10.9% per annum and 29% per annum of overdue interest to raise funds for purchasing excavated machines. At the time, the Defendant provided joint and several surety for the above loan obligations of B.
B. On September 21, 2017, a non-Esp Capital Co., Ltd. transferred a claim for loans against B (hereinafter “claim for loans of this case”) to the Plaintiff. Around that time, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim upon delegation by the non-Esp Capital Co., Ltd.
C. As of January 16, 2018, the instant loan claims were 5,757,647 won in total, including the principal amount of KRW 35,925,393, interest and overdue interest amount of KRW 20,832,254, and overdue interest amount of KRW 56,757,647.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 10, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff with respect to the total amount of KRW 56,757,647, and the principal amount of the instant loan and KRW 35,925,393.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the principal of the loan jointly and severally guaranteed is not 48 million won but 25 million won, but the defendant's assertion that the principal of the loan is 48 million won. However, according to the Gap evidence No. 1 which presumed the authenticity of the whole document due to the lack of dispute over the defendant, the defendant merely guaranteed the principal of the loan 48 million won, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the principal of the loan jointly and severally guaranteed is 25 million won. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.