beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 28,898,00 and Defendant B from April 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 31, 2010, Defendant B drafted a letter of payment with the purport to pay the Plaintiff not later than April 25, 2010, plus the interest calculated by 28,898,000 won and the interest calculated by 2% (24% per annum) per month.
B. Defendant C signed the said letter of payment as the guarantor and guaranteed Defendant B’s above obligation.
[Ground of recognition] In a case where there is no dispute over Defendant B: entry of evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings as to Defendant C: Decision by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 28,898,000 and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum with the Plaintiff within the scope of the above agreement from April 1, 2010, which is the following day of March 31, 2010, to October 6, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff; Defendant C, from January 28, 2015, to the day of full payment, to January 28, 2015, to the day of full payment.
3. Defendant B’s assertion that the foregoing payment was made without the intention of bearing the obligation, and thus, null and void. However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B’s expression of intent to repay the obligation was contrary to the intention of the internal deliberation. Even if the above expression of intent constitutes an intention of the non-influence, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, the other party, knew or could have known that the Plaintiff was not the intention of the non-influence. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant B asserts that the above payment statement was made by the Plaintiff’s coercion, but in the case of declaration of intention by duress, it is not naturally null and void, but can only be cancelled. Defendant B did not assert that it is revoked. In addition, the above declaration of intention is made by coercion.