beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for KRW 188,698,630 and KRW 97,00,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) on February 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendants claiming return of unjust enrichment with Suwon District Court 2008Gahap3070, and on June 13, 2008, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 97,00,000 and 20% per annum from March 6, 2008 to the date of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on July 30, 208.
(2) Defendant D paid KRW 93,00,000 to the Plaintiffs from December 1, 2008 to May 31, 2017, and the Plaintiffs appropriated this for the repayment of interest on the said judgment claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above findings of determination, the defendants jointly and severally set forth in the above facts of finding the amount of KRW 97,00,000 for the principal of the judgment claim of this case and damages for delay of KRW 184,698,630 (=174,600,000 + KRW 97,000 x 20% x 97,000 x 99% x March 5, 2008) 10,098,630 won (= 97,000,000 x 20% x 190% x 00% x 000 x 000 % x 607,000 x 609 % of the above amount of damages for delay from March 6, 2017 (the purport of this case and the date of filing an application for alteration of causes) / 365) x 600,0000 won per month for the above amount of KRW A 6010.60
1. 18,698,630 won (=97,00,000 won 184,698,630 won - 93,000,000 won) and 97,000,000 won from the date following the delivery date of the written application for alteration of the purport of the instant claim and the written application for alteration of the cause of the instant case, are obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 20, 2017 to the date of full payment.
2. Determination on Defendant D’s assertion