beta
Text
Defendant B and E, jointly and severally, jointly and severally, shall be the Plaintiff KRW 850 million and the Defendant from July 27, 2010.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant B and E
A. On July 27, 2010, the Plaintiff indicated the claim and lent KRW 850 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) as of September 15, 2010 due date for reimbursement. Defendant E jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation.
Therefore, Defendant Company and E are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 850 million from July 27, 2010 to November 9, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case against the Defendant Company; Defendant E is 6% per annum under each Commercial Act until December 6, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case against Defendant E; and 20% per annum under each Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
(b) Defendant E: Judgment by means of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act) and deeming that the applicable provisions of Acts apply to Defendant E: Judgment by means of service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant C and D
A. On July 27, 2010, Defendant C was registered as an internal director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant D, the parent company of the Defendant Company, was in charge of financing and accounting, and was in charge of the Defendant Company’s overall control over the Defendant Company. (2) On July 27, 2010, Defendant Company and Defendant C designated Defendant D as Defendant D’s agent and delegated all the powers regarding the commission of authentic deeds to the effect that, in the event of delinquency in the payment of the joint and several liability obligations for Defendant C’s above loan, Defendant C did not immediately object to compulsory execution (Evidence 2-10).
3. On July 27, 2010, Defendant D entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement as an agent of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, on the same day, Defendant D lent KRW 850 million to Defendant C, G, E, and H by a notary public from No. 17519 of Hyundai Law Firm 2010 to the Plaintiff Company F and the Defendant Company, as the same day, and on the same day, Defendant C, G, E, and H.