beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 64,543,058 and KRW 63,551,687 among them.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of claim
A. 1) On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 110,00,000 per annum interest rate of KRW 9.9% per annum, overdue interest rate of KRW 21.9% per annum, and interest rate of KRW 60% per annum, and Defendant B, the representative director of D, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) jointly and severally guaranteed each of the instant loan obligations around the same day, and around August 18, 2017, around 2017, the balance of the loan principal of this case as of October 18, 2017 is KRW 63,551,687, interest and overdue interest rate of KRW 991,371.
[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Each entry in the evidence of Nos. 2 through 6, as a whole, Defendant C: deemed as confession
B. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 64,543,058 won (63,551,687 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 21.9% per annum from October 19, 2017 to the date of full payment.
2. As to Defendant B’s assertion
A. Comparedly, D’s assertion 1 is merely a type of debtor as a branch company and a title trustee. Defendant B has formally guaranteed as a joint representative of D, and Defendant B was the actual debtor of D, and the Plaintiff was aware of this, and thus constitutes a false conspiracy, and thus becomes null and void. 2) The judgment D merely lent the name in the form of the instant loan agreement, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received the instant loan agreement under the intent of not imposing liability on D with respect to D with the understanding of this, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff received the instant loan agreement with the intent of not imposing liability on D.
B. The Plaintiff asserted as exemption 1) The Plaintiff infringed the Defendant B’s subrogation right, a joint and several surety, by having D lose its possession as a security at the time of the transfer of the said new brand bus to Defendant C, and thus, it should be exempted to the extent that it cannot be repaid due to its loss under Article 485 of the Civil Act. 2)