beta
Text
1. As to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be KRW 2,995,697,371 and KRW 2,400,000 among them.
Reasons
1. The facts acknowledged as follows: (a) the joint and several liability of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) within the limit of KRW 3,120,00,000,00 for each of the following facts; and (b) the Plaintiff transferred the claims against the Defendants to the Intervenor on August 28, 2015; and (c) around September 7, 2015, the Defendant Co., Ltd is deemed to have been led to the confession between the Defendant Co., Ltd. pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (d) the remaining Defendants are not in dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings in each of the statements as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3, and 2-4.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim as the Plaintiff transferred its claim against the Defendants to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff is without merit. The Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor the total amount of KRW 2,995,697,371 won and the principal amount of KRW 2,400,000,000 from May 6, 2015 to June 4, 2015, the agreed interest rate of KRW 11.39% per annum from the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order from the next day to September 30, 2015; KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until September 30, 2015; and KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; Defendant B, C, and D, a joint and several surety, within the scope of KRW 3,120,000.
The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor claimed that Defendant B, C, and D pay the full amount of the Defendant Company’s debt. However, as seen earlier, the said Defendants concluded a joint and several surety contract fixing KRW 3,120,00,000 as the limit of collateral guarantee, and thus, the claim for the portion exceeding the above recognized limit is without merit.
B. Defendant B, C, and D’s assertion is against the real estate owned by the Defendant Company.