beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable for KRW 30 million from October 11, 2017 to June 21, 2019.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, on October 11, 2017, lent the amount of KRW 30 million to Defendant B by designating as two copies per month interest, and the Defendant C, as joint and several surety, the Plaintiff thereafter lent the amount of KRW 60 million on November 6, 2017 and KRW 7 million on December 5, 2017 to Defendant B by setting as KRW 150,000 per month interest.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and delay damages therefor, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 7 million and delay damages.
B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the loans of KRW 7 million with Defendant C, but the evidence that Defendant C provided joint and several surety for the above KRW 7 million is not submitted by the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.
C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 30 million won and the amount equivalent thereto, from October 11, 2017 to June 21, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the Plaintiff, at the rate of 15% per annum within the agreed rate, and at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as agreed upon by the Plaintiff, from October 18, 2018 to June 21, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.