beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 21,600,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2014 to August 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts are not in dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and may be acknowledged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C based on the purport of each of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and C as a whole.
The Plaintiff supplied timber to Defendant B from June 2013 to November 201, 2013, but did not receive KRW 5,470,500 out of the price of the goods. Moreover, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,965,900 on four occasions from June 25, 2013 to August 19, 2013, but did not receive the payment.
B. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with Defendant B to reduce the total amount of KRW 26,436,400 by KRW 21,60,000,000 for unpaid goods and loans, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from Defendant B as “the amount of KRW 21,60,000 for rent, and the due date of payment on December 31, 2013” (hereinafter “the instant money”), and issued the said loan certificate.
2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 21,600,000,000, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 to August 12, 2015, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served, to September 30, 2015, 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% 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.
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the preparation of the instant loan certificate, Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to pay the instant money to the Plaintiff, the husband, and sought joint payment of the instant money against Defendant C.
B. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the Defendant C’s title, among the loan certificates (Evidence A No. 4) of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.