beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 56,428,80, and KRW 310,920,000, and each said money.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the defendants jointly issue to the plaintiff A a promissory note with "the amount of face value 56,428,800 won, the payee A, the place of issue, the place of payment, the place of payment, the date of issue, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the date of issue, April 15, 2016, and the date of payment." On the same day, the plaintiff B jointly issues a promissory note with "the amount of face value 310,920,000 won, the payee B, the place of payment, the place of payment, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of payment, the date of issue, and the date of issue of the Promissory note with "the amount of face value 56,428,800 won, the date of payment," and the date of issue at sight" (hereinafter each of the above promissory note).
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly issuers of the Promissory Notes and bear an obligation based on the said Promissory Notes. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from January 17, 2020 to the date following the date of final delivery of a copy of the instant Promissory Notes sought by the Plaintiffs with respect to the Plaintiff A, KRW 56,428,80, and KRW 310,920,000, and each said money.
2. Defendant D and E’s assertion and judgment
A. Defendant D and E, while lending funds to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), promised that Defendant D and E will not pursue liability under the aforesaid Promissory Notes if only formally signed in the issuer column of the Promissory Notes, and thus, the said Defendants cannot respond to the Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Plaintiffs’ claims in this case violate the doctrine of speech.
The testimony of the above defendants is insufficient to admit the above defendants' above assertion only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the testimony of witness F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, ① the actual chief executive officer of the defendant company was G.