beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and Defendant A from October 1, 2017 to June 23, 2018.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition shall be as shown in the attached Form of claims and the changed causes of claims;
(However, the agreed interest rate is 8% per annum). [The grounds for recognition] Defendant A (Service by Public Notice): The entries in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, Defendant B: The absence of dispute, each entry in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000,00 and the following day following the due date for payment to June 23, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, Defendant A, and Defendant B, until July 11, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, 8% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, and Defendant B, within the scope of the inherited property, is obligated to pay from the network C (hereinafter “the network”).
(A) The Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum for the period from the due date until the date of delivery of the instant complaint or the written application for modification of the cause of the claim. However, there is no assertion or proof as to the overdue interest rate as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.
Defendant B’s assertion 1) Defendant B, a real principal debtor, was unable to carry the deceased, who is an employee, as a principal debtor in the form of form, and the Plaintiff understood that the loan contract was concluded without the intention to have the deceased bear the obligation. The act of lending to the deceased is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, and it cannot be deemed that the deceased, who is merely an employee, had the intent to become a guarantor to A, the principal debtor, and thus, it is not recognized as a guarantee liability of the deceased. 2) In order to establish a false declaration of intention