beta
Text
1. The Defendants are 128,00,000 won to each Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 16, 2013 to February 25, 2014.
Reasons
On September 8, 2012, the confirmation of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B confirmed that, after May 2011, Defendant B would reimburse the Plaintiff of KRW 180,000,000,000, excluding the principal amount of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000:
It is confirmed that from September 2012, KRW 5 million to October 2012, KRW 500,000 to KRW 500 to KRW 1 million shall be paid in full.
Defendant B (before the opening of the name), on September 8, 2012, prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the following contents:
On November 16, 2012, the Defendants drafted and sent to the Plaintiff a letter of payment with the following content, and signed the said letter of payment (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”). E, F, and G as a observer, the Defendants signed the said letter of payment (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).
I borrowed KRW 200 million on May 14, 201, and will repay in full to the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 170 million as of November 18, 2012 by November 15, 2013.
The repayment shall be made in 3 million won per month, and 3.6 million won shall be deducted from 170 million won on the final repayment date.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire arguments, and the above facts of recognition are as follows. The defendants agreed to pay 170,000,000 won to the plaintiff until November 16, 2013. The defendants are obligated to pay 128,000,000 won (i.e., 42,000,000 won - 42,0000 won - 42,000,000 won - from the day following the above payment date to Nov. 16, 2013 to Feb. 25, 2014, the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 5% per annum from the day following the date of service of the original copy of the payment order of this case to Feb. 25, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Defendant C’s defense was made by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s strong pressure or the Defendants’ fluorial circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff and Defendant C were either null and void or made up with the knowledge that they were not responsible for Defendant C’s defense and constitutes an indication of truth.