beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 180,000,000 won and each year from May 7, 2010 to March 5, 2018.
Reasons
1. On January 6, 2010, the Defendants based on the facts are the borrower, and Defendant C, as the joint and several surety, prepared and delivered each of the following loans:
(hereinafter referred to as "each of the loans in this case". Japan: on June 18, 2003, Defendant B, one hundred million Won, who borrowed from the Plaintiff in connection with the purchase of real estate, recognized the above amount as the principal and interest interest of KRW 100 million borrowed from the Plaintiff, and signed and sealed this loan certificate.
Until now, the interest will be deducted and paid 12% interest per annum from January 1, 2010 to the repayment will be made together with the guarantor.
The first certificate of use: The defendant B of Samcheon-won, in 1996, promised with the surety that the above amount shall be determined in the balance after cash transactions with the plaintiff and until then, and that 12% interest per annum shall be paid in good faith until the payment has been made, and signed and sealed on this certificate.
(b) The fact that there is no dispute over the second proof (based on recognition), the entry of evidence A 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 180 million, interest thereon, and delay damages, as stated in each of the instant loan certificates. (2) The Defendants’ assertion by the Defendants have borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as stated in the said secondary loan certificates. However, the Defendants’ assertion by the Defendants are not the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff, but the amount of KRW 100 million based on the said primary loan certificates.
B. 1) The court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the Disposition Document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents are denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456, Oct. 11, 1994). 2) The Plaintiff should return to the instant case, health zone, and as seen earlier.