beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 2014 to August 14, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 25, 2004, Defendant B issued each promissory note of KRW 35,000,000 at face value and KRW 25,000,000 at face value to the Plaintiff, and each promissory note of KRW 25,00,000 (hereinafter “each promissory note of this case”) to the Plaintiff, and each of the said promissory notes is indicated as the guarantor.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was leased KRW 52,80,000 in total to the Defendants from February 2, 2003 to April 2003. However, since the Defendants prepared each of the instant promissory notes to the Plaintiff with the purport that the balance of the obligation to return the loan was settled, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,00 as the repayment of the said loan or the fulfillment of the agreement based on each of the instant promissory notes, and as such, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 52,80,000,00
3. Determination
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to Defendant B, Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 60,00,000 to the Plaintiff through the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 60,00,000 per annum from January 8, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case (the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, shall be deemed the initial date of the damages for delay), which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, until the sentencing date of this case, and from the next day to the day of complete payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20,00 per annum.
As to this, Defendant B only disbursed money with the Defendants for gambling such as private horse, etc., and did not lend money to the Defendants. Defendant B issued each of the instant promissory notes to the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s intimidation. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to return the loan of its assertion to the Plaintiff.