beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant A’s KRW 65,678,667 and KRW 21,308,378 among them
B. Defendant B, Defendant A, etc.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including part number) of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Defendant A bears each obligation listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each obligation of this case”) against each financial institution listed in the separate sheet as of August 1, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the financial institutions of this case”) as of August 1, 2014, and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation Nos. 2 and 4 out of the above obligation. Each of the financial institutions of this case concluded an asset transfer contract with the Plaintiff on May 13, 2005 under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and notified the Defendants of the transfer of the obligation at that time, and the fact that the Plaintiff applied the overdue interest rate of 17% per annum with respect to the obligation acquired from a financial institution.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, Defendant A is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment as to KRW 65,678,667, and KRW 21,308,378 among the total principal and interest of each of the obligations of this case, and KRW 65,678,667, jointly and severally with Defendant A, as to KRW 33,697,136, and KRW 10,526,855, respectively.
2. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations defense by the Defendants had expired. Accordingly, according to each of the statements in evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Defendant A submitted each of the obligations of this case on October 24, 2005 and March 26, 2012, with respect to each of the obligations of this case, and the submission of a request for re-resolution and a letter of undertaking, and the fact that Defendant A partially repaid each of the obligations of this case from October 31, 2005 to February 28, 2013. Accordingly, Defendant A approved each of the obligations of this case and the statute of limitations was suspended.
Therefore, the plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's second defense is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants.