beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 600,000,000 as well as 15% per annum from November 22, 2008 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim for loans made on May 17, 2007
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the amount calculated by applying the ratio of 15% per annum to the plaintiff, as the agreement is within the scope of the above rate from Nov. 22, 2008 (the day following the date of preparation of the evidence No. 3 (Certificate) to the day of complete payment) to the day of full payment, and as the agreement is within the scope of the above rate of KRW 600 million to the defendant C on May 17, 2007 and July 17, 2007, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to Defendant C’s defense, Defendant C asserted that the above loan claim had expired by the statute of limitations. As seen earlier, the fact that the repayment period of the above loan claim was July 17, 2007 is clear in the record that the lawsuit of the Plaintiffs was filed on June 29, 2018, which was ten years after it was ten years from the lawsuit of this case. However, according to Defendant C’s evidence No. 3 (the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been completed, since there is no dispute over the part of Defendant C’s unmanned), Defendant C borrowed KRW 60 million prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations period, and did not pay the remaining interest and principal, which is a part of the interest, and it can be acknowledged that the above loan was approved by issuing a confirmation document to the Plaintiffs, thereby suspending the statute of limitations.
Therefore, the above defendant's defense is without merit.
2. Determination as to the claim for advance reimbursement
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows: (a) around December 9, 201, the above defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") around December 9, 201 upon the request of Defendant D; and (b) the plaintiffs own 1/2 shares of each of the above 1/2 shares, Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu apartment apartment G.