beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 25,890,112 and KRW 22,673,01 among them. From November 21, 2015, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 3, 2015, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) entered into an agreement on a vehicle loan agreement with the Defendant to grant a loan of KRW 25,000,000 at the interest rate of 12.9% per annum, overdue interest rate of 25% per annum, repayment period of 36 months, redemption rate of 2.8% per annum, and at the time, Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant A, was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the obligation under the above loan agreement of Defendant A.
B. As of November 20, 2015, Defendant A’s delinquency in the payment of the repayment under the above loan agreement, the interest amounting to KRW 22,673,01 for the debt under the above loan agreement, KRW 593,200 for the redemption fee, KRW 40,06 for the interest amount, KRW 2,523,60 for the unpaid repayment, and overdue interest amounting to KRW 60,235 for the interest amount.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, defendant B asserted that the signature and seal of defendant B was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and defendant B stated to the effect that he acknowledged the fact that he and he and she had jointly and severally guaranteed a telephone conversation with the plaintiff after the preparation of the above agreement) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 25,890,112 ( KRW 22,673,01 KRW 593,200 KRW 40,066 KRW 2,523,60 KRW 600) and the principal amount of KRW 22,673,01,01 from November 21, 2015 to the date of full payment, the agreed interest rate of KRW 25% per annum.
Therefore, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not have the obligation to repay since they transferred a vehicle purchased with the above loan to C, and C agreed to take over the above loan obligation. However, the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Defendants are merely agreements between the Defendants and C, and thus, they can oppose the Plaintiff by itself.