beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 36,300,000 and KRW 30,000 among them, from June 11, 2007 to March 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 29, 2006, Defendant B borrowed KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff as a condition for construction and construction of the E-factory construction in Youngcheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the due date for payment was September 30, 2006. (b) On November 2, 2006, Defendant B borrowed KRW 40,000,000 for the construction cost for the construction of the E-factory construction in Youngcheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.
The Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating “,” and delivered it to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C affixed a seal on the name next to the name entered in the guarantor column at the bottom of the above loan certificate. C. On March 28, 2007, Defendant B entered KRW 30,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff with the cost of new construction of G factory in Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si.
6. The promise to pay up to 10.
Interest 3% per month, 7 months x 900,00 won = 6,300,000 won in total, 36,300,000 won in total, and delivered to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy and entry of Gap 1 to 3
2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendants jointly and severally seek payment of interest and delay damages on KRW 36,300,000 among the borrowed money and KRW 30,000 (the plaintiff 36,300,000,000 among the above borrowed money) from the plaintiff. However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff appears to be the principal of the borrowed money and the remaining KRW 6,300,000 among the above borrowed money is the interest calculated at the rate of 3% per month. Thus, the part claiming interest or delay damages on KRW 6,300,00 is not accepted) from June 11, 2007 to March 25, 2015, which is the date of the decision of this case, 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act and 20% per annum as provided by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
3. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered.