beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally (Provided, That Defendant B, C, and D are limited to KRW 144,00,000) with the Plaintiff KRW 105,98,455.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. (1) On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation with the guarantee limit amount of KRW 120 million by designating 12.24% per annum of agreed interest rate, KRW 12% per annum of delay interest rate, and KRW 12% per annum of interest rate, and KRW 3 months for two years after one year of repayment notice (hereinafter “instant loan”). Meanwhile, Defendant B, C, and D guaranteed the instant loan obligation by setting the guarantee limit amount of KRW 144 million.4 million.
(2) As the Defendant Company delayed repayment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, it lost the benefit of December 18, 2014.
(3) As of November 26, 2015, the principal and interest of the instant loan amounting to KRW 105,98,455 (i.e., the principal and interest of the instant loan amounting to KRW 90,00,000 with interest of KRW 452,412 with interest of KRW 90,00,412 with interest of KRW 13,360,384 with interest of KRW 13,65,
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 105,98,45 won including the principal and interest of this case, and 92,628,701 won among them, 12% per annum, which is a delayed interest rate, from November 27, 2015 to April 9, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Defendant C’s assertion and determination are asserted that Defendant C would be exempt from the remaining joint and several liability if Defendant C repaid 1/3 of the loan debt of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by Defendant C.
Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.