beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 28,50,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from September 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
In fact, Defendant B admitted the judgment on the cause of the claim, which consists of 30 members around January 2012, and the Plaintiff, who paid the total sum of KRW 1.5 million over 30 times a month, joined the successful bidder who is the lead.
Around April 10, 2012, Defendant B, upon receiving KRW 43.5 million from the Plaintiff, drafted a mutual savings agreement stating that the sum of KRW 1.5 million per month from January 10, 2012 to June 27, 2014 (i.e., KRW 1.5 million x 30 times) would be paid by the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, the wife of Defendant B, jointly and severally guaranteed the said debt on the same day.
[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 16,50,000 won (1.5 million won x 11), excluding the deposit amount of the plaintiff who was already paid to the plaintiff (1.5 million won x 9-11 times), 28,50,000 won (45 million won - 16.5 million won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from September 23, 2016 to the date of full payment of the plaintiff's claim.
The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants’ assertion has paid to the Plaintiff both the 25th installment payments. As such, the Defendants’ assertion is only KRW 7.5 million (=45 million - (1.5 million x 25) at present.
Judgment
The Defendants submitted the Defendants’ accounting books (No. 1) with the unpaid deposit amount of KRW 7.5 million, and the Defendants’ accounting books (No. 1). On the other hand, the said accounting books indicate Dongra from 1 to 25 times, while there is no such indication from 26 times.
However, the following circumstances revealed in light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff received a deposit from the Defendants, and indicated the details thereof in the said deposit account book, and (ii) the Plaintiff did not receive a deposit amount.