beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 58,00,000 and Defendant B from June 15, 2010 to July 26, 2016.
Reasons
1. On April 29, 2009, the Defendants agreed to set the E Hospital located in the Jeonju-gun of North Korea as the share ratio of 50:50 and operate it as the partnership business.
After that, if Defendant B invested KRW 50 million with the operating capital of the above hospital to the Plaintiff, he promised to pay the profits in the amount of KRW 3 million each month as the salary according to the registration of the director, and return the profits after one year.
Accordingly, on May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendants, and was issued a letter of agreement, stating the agreement to the same effect, as the operating capital borrowed on June 14, 2009.
【In the absence of dispute, the Defendants’ joint and several liability should be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, as follows: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap evidence 1-2; (c) Gap evidence 3-3; and (d) Gap evidence 4; and (c) the entire purport of the pleading; and (d) the Defendants’ obligation to return the agreed amount to the Plaintiff by the Defendants.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 76 million won (=36 million won of the invested principal (=3 million won of the investment principal x 12 months) excluding the remainder of 58 million won, excluding the investment principal (3 million won of the investment principal) and the remainder of 15 million won, from June 15, 2010 following the due date to the delivery date of a copy of the application for change of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim (Defendant B:6 July 26, 2016; Defendant C: July 15, 2016) under the Civil Act, and damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of complete payment).
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 5 million in addition to KRW 15 million as the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.