beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 30, 2016 to May 30, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 9 (including additional numbers), D lent KRW 15,00,00 to the supplementary intervenor around September 22, 2015, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation (hereinafter "the loan obligation of this case"), and ② D transferred the loan obligation of this case to the plaintiff around April 14, 2017, and around that time the transfer notice was given.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant’s Intervenor to pay the Plaintiff the above loans of KRW 15,00,000 and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 30, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, to May 30, 2017, which is the date of the instant judgment, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation to perform, to the Defendant from August 30, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. In addition to the instant loan claim, the Plaintiff lent KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s supplementary intervenor on September 30, 2015, respectively, and KRW 25,00,000 on October 8, 2015, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation. Although the Defendant asserted to the purport, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant concluded a joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s debt, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder of the issue.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that "the defendant's assistant intervenor voluntarily prepared the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 without the defendant's consent," and asserts that "the defendant's assistant intervenor voluntarily prepared the evidence Nos. 3-1 to 3-3, but comprehensively takes account of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6