beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 37,250,000 won and the Defendants shall be from May 1, 2010 to November 9, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 15 and December 25, 2008, the Plaintiff organized the number system in which 2,500,000 won are paid in advance, respectively, and the Defendants participated in the above number system and received the amount.
B. Defendant B agreed between the Plaintiff on November 25, 2008 and Defendant B, from November 25, 2008 to April 25, 2010, to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as the deposit amount on the 25th day of each month, and Defendant C guaranteed the above obligation on the same day.
C. After that, Defendant B entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on July 3, 2009 to pay KRW 50,450,000 as the above number settlement agreement, and Defendant B entered into an agreement to pay KRW 2,50,000 each month from July 10 to April 30, 2010, respectively.
(However, on April 30, 2010, to pay KRW 2,950,000.
Defendant C agreed to adjust the deposit relationship with the Plaintiff on August 7, 2009, Defendant C paid KRW 2,500,000 to D on July 25, 2009, and KRW 5,000,000 each month from August 25, 2009 to April 25, 2010.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,450,000 to the Plaintiff for the settlement of accounts receivable owed to Defendant B. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 47,50,000 (= KRW 2,500,000 5,000 x 9) to the Plaintiff for the settlement of accounts accounts accounts receivable owed to Defendant C.
B. Defendant B’s assertion (1) First, Defendant B alleged that the Plaintiff and Defendant B transferred the Plaintiff’s obligation to deposit money to D on July 3, 2009, while settling accounts on July 3, 2009, but the Plaintiff’s claim was insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s obligation to deposit money. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the purport of the entire argument in the statement of No. 4 is the purport of the entire argument.