beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 13, 2006 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. Indication of claim: The plaintiff loaned 15% per annum to the defendant B at the rate of 30,000,000 on March 3, 2006 (payment on the sixth day of each month) and on March 6, 2006. The plaintiff shall claim against the above defendant for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 13, 2006 to the date of payment of the last interest thereon.
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 15% per annum (payment on March 3, 2006) to Defendant B on March 3, 2006, and on March 6, 2006, the due date for payment (payment on March 6, 2006), and Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligations. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan and its delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the name of "C" as the joint and several liability column for the defendant Eul evidence No. 1 (the borrowed loan certificate), but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above signature is the completion of the defendant Eul's own seal, and there is no evidence to prove that the above signature is the completion of the defendant Eul's own seal attached to the above name, and the plaintiff also stated to the effect that "the plaintiff merely received the certificate No. 1 (the borrowed loan certificate) from the defendant Eul and did not know about whether the defendant Eul participated in the preparation of the above document." In light of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 1 (the borrowed loan certificate) cannot be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation to the plaintiff of the defendant Eul due to lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above document, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.
Even if it is recognized that the defendant C's joint and several guarantee agreement is accepted.