beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,200,00,000 and the period from November 29, 2016 to May 18, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From June 2008 to May 201, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 2,115,340,880 over several occasions to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (the representative director: Defendant C; hereinafter “Defendant Company”). The Defendants, on October 27, 2012, prepared a loan certificate with Defendant Company as the debtor, and Defendant C as the joint guarantor, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
B. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Defendants under this Court 2012Gahap24183. On May 30, 2013, the said lawsuit was pending, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to the effect that “the Defendant Company shall treat the Defendant Company as a substitute payment of KRW 1 billion out of KRW 2,115,340,880 of the loan amounting to KRW 2,115,340,000 and the remaining amount of debt shall be determined as KRW 1.2 billion in consideration of interest, etc.”
Accordingly, with respect to the remaining debt amount of KRW 1.2 billion (hereinafter “the loan of this case”), the Defendants prepared a loan certificate with Defendant Company as debtor, Defendant C as joint and several sureties (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). On October 27, 2012, together with the loan certificate issued on the loan of this case, “each of the loan certificates of this case” and delivered it to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff withdrawn the claim for the loan of this case on June 3, 2013.
C. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a written notification demanding the repayment of the said borrowed amount, and the Defendants received the said written notification on October 12, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the loan of this case is a debt for which the maturity date has not been determined (the plaintiff asserted that the maturity date will expire one year after May 30, 2013, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it).