beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable:
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 104,000,000 and its amount, Defendant C shall be from November 1, 2016 to September 1, 2019.
Reasons
1. Grounds for claims: To be as described in the grounds for claims in attached Form;
2. Defendant C: Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, as to Defendant D’s claim, the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendants a sum of KRW 104,00,000,000 to the Defendants, KRW 4,000,000 on May 28, 2016, ② KRW 15,000,000 on July 15, 2016, ④ KRW 5,000,000 on July 20, 2016, ⑤ KRW 2,000,000 on August 17, 2016, and KRW 104,00,000 on the loan to the Defendants, KRW 5,00,000 on July 6, 2016, KRW 1,000 on August 36, 2016.
Plaintiff
A agreed on July 2, 2016 or October 31, 2016, when each of the above loans was made within one month, or when each of the loans was made. Since all of the plaintiffs thereafter extended to October 31, 2016, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above loans and the damages for delay from the next day after the loan was made. Since the plaintiff B lent the loans to the one-month period on August 4, 2016, the defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the above loans and the damages for delay from the next day after the loan was made. However, the defendants asserted that the above loans and the above loans are jointly and severally liable to pay each of the above loans and the damages for delay from the next day after the loan was made. However, it is difficult to acknowledge this point differently.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that each of the above loans was given peremptory notice to Defendant D by the delivery of the complaint of this case with a claim with no fixed maturity date. As such, Defendant D, jointly and severally with Defendant C, against the Plaintiff, for whom KRW 104,000,000 and the following day after the delivery of the complaint of this case, Defendant D, as of August 17, 2019, has a considerable dispute over the scope of its obligation to perform.