beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, Defendant C, KRW 10,000,00,000, and Defendant D and E, jointly and severally, KRW 30,000,00,00, and each of them.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant B on September 7, 2005 is not a dispute between the parties.
Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
As to this, from September 8, 2005, Defendant B repaid total of KRW 12,60,000 on a total of 60 times, Defendant B repaid KRW 1,00,000 on January 2, 2006, and paid KRW 5,000,000 on a unpaid amount of KRW 26.5,000,000 on December 26, 2005, Defendant B agreed to exempt the remainder from the obligation and agreed to pay KRW 5,00,000 on January 10, 206 in accordance with the agreement, and thus, the obligation against the Plaintiff was extinguished upon full repayment.
According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, Eul, it is recognized that the defendant Eul paid the plaintiff KRW 1,00,000,000 on January 2, 2006, and KRW 5,000,00 on December 26, 2006 through F, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant Eul paid the plaintiff a total of KRW 12,60,000,000 on a total of 60,000, and there is no other 5,00,000.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to claim that the remainder 24,00,000, which remains after deducting KRW 6,000,000, out of the above loan, and the due date after the above loan date is due and payable on the following day. From March 26, 2006, Defendant B is obliged to dispute over the existence and scope of the above Defendant’s obligation and its scope until September 3, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of this case, to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment by public notice on the claim against Defendant C (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
3. According to the evidence No. 4 of the claim No. 4 against Defendant D and E, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant D on January 15, 2009 as interest rate of 2%, and the Defendant E can each recognize the fact that the above loan obligation was jointly and severally guaranteed.
According to the above facts of recognition, defendant D and E.