beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C to the plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from January 12, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff leased KRW 30,00,00 to C on May 30, 2005 on the due date for repayment of KRW 30,00,00 to C on August 30, 2005, and the interest monthly rate of KRW 5%. The Defendant, who is his wife, C, has guaranteed the above loan obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day, is not in dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement in subparagraph 1.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay to the Plaintiff the above joint and several liability amount of KRW 30,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act sought by the Plaintiff from January 12, 2016 to the day of full payment, on the record, which is the day following the day on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendant
(C) Judgment on the defendant's assertion on February 2, 200
A. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is a defense that the plaintiff's above joint and several obligation has expired, and as seen earlier, the fact that the period of repayment of loan claims as of May 30, 2005 was August 30, 2005. The plaintiff's application for the payment order of this case was filed on November 24, 2015 after the ten years have passed from the above. However, in addition to the whole purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, C deposits KRW 500,00 in the defendant's account on January 25, 2006 and deposited KRW 600,000 in the defendant's account on July 26, 2006 under Eul's name, and the fact that the above fact constitutes the fact that the defendant deposited KRW 600,000 in the defendant's account on July 26, 2006, considering the above fact that there was no money transaction between the plaintiff and C, and that the defendant did not dispute the above interest payment amount as of this case.