beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from February 21, 2013 to February 21, 2013 to Plaintiff B, KRW 14,220,357, respectively, and each of them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 22, 2012, the deceased A’s lending of money to the Defendant, etc.: (a) under the Defendant’s joint and several guarantee by Nonparty F, Nonparty F, Nonparty F, the Defendant, 5% per month; (b) the interest rate of KRW 60 million per month; (c) the payment date; and (d) the due date of repayment on December 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lending”); and (d) the Defendant and F were issued with a loan certificate (Evidence 1) containing the same content on the same day.
B. F paid F’s monetary amount to the Plaintiff, ① KRW 3 million on October 21, 2012, ② KRW 500,000 on October 22, 2012, ③ KRW 3.5 million on November 20, 2012, ④ KRW 3.6 million on December 20, 2012, ④ KRW 2.6 million on January 10, 2013, ⑤ KRW 3.6 million on January 10, 2013, and KRW 3.6 million on January 21, 2013, and KRW 7 million on February 20, 2013, respectively.
(hereinafter referred to as "first payment of this case" and "second payment of this case, etc." according to the sequence 100s.
The deceased A died on December 7, 2014 when the instant lawsuit was pending, and the Plaintiff C and D, the wife of the Plaintiff B and C, taken over the status of the lawsuit of the Plaintiff C and D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts based on the determination of the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs, their successors, the amount of KRW 60 million, and delay damages at the rate of KRW 30 per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, which was in force at the time.
In the reply submitted on May 9, 2013, the initial stage of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff did not lose the benefit of time since the Plaintiff paid the instant payment to the Plaintiff as interest.
However, after that, the defendant is the name of interest on the loan of this case to the plaintiff.