beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and D jointly share KRW 43,000,000, and this shall be from January 1, 2015 to November 9, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 12, 201, the Defendant: (a) prepared and sent to the Plaintiff a letter stating that KRW 43,000,000 will be repaid to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant letter”); and (b) written the said letter stating “The details and the date of payment are D; and (c) Defendant D signed and sealed the said letter.”
B. On June 12, 201, Defendant C promised to pay 25,000,000 won to the Plaintiff by the end of December 2014, and agreed to pay 25,000,000 won to the Plaintiff in the event inheritance shares are acquired by inheritance by sale (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), and the above loan certificate states “D” as the guarantor for the borrowed amount and the due date. Accordingly, Defendant C signed and sealed the above loan certificate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B and D jointly bear the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 43,00,000,00, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 1, 2015 to November 9, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the final complaint of this case, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, Defendant C and D jointly bear the obligation to pay each damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25,00,000 and 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 1, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the final complaint of this case, from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment.
As to this, Defendant D signed and sealed the contents of the instant notes and loan certificates to the effect that it is confirmed, and Defendant D did not state the content of the guarantee at the time of Defendant D’s signature and seal, and the above phrase stated that the Plaintiff altered it, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, Defendant D’s above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.