beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 26,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from April 2, 2019, and Defendant C with respect to the said amount.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the pleading evidence No. 1 as a whole, the Plaintiff sold at KRW 160,000,000 to D Building E, Siljin-si, and received KRW 20,000 and intermediate payment of KRW 95,00,000 and the remainder of KRW 45,000,000, not paid, and then borrowed this on December 14, 2016, and the Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed it.
In addition, the fact that F repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 7,00,000 on December 2, 2016 and June 2017, and the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 12,00,000 in the voluntary auction procedure for the foregoing D building E, and agreed to repay all the above amounts to the principal of the loan. There is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 26,00,000 won for the remaining principal of the loan (=45,00,000 won - 7,000,000 won - 12,00,000 won), and as the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant B, the following day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, is from April 2, 2019; Defendant C, from March 26, 2019 to July 2, 2019, has a considerable dispute over the existence or scope of each of the instant performance obligations; and Defendant C, from March 26, 2019 to July 2, 2019, is obligated to pay the amount calculated at each of the annual rates of 12% as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The Defendants asserted that: (a) the evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence) was prepared by the Plaintiff’s coercion using the Plaintiff’s old condition; and (b) the Defendants did not bear the obligation to repay the loan to the Plaintiff; (c) however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said loan certificate was drafted by the Plaintiff’s coercion.
The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.