beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,873,560,277 within the limit of KRW 5,100,000 and KRW 1,081,702,067 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) Tomato 2 Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “tomato 2 Savings Bank”)
(B) On October 7, 2009, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”)
(3) The repayment period of KRW 3,400,000 was set at April 7, 2010, annual interest rate of KRW 13%, annual interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, and interest rate of delay damages (hereinafter “instant loan”).
3) The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation amounting to KRW 5,100,000,000 (hereinafter “instant collateral guarantee”).
(2) On April 30, 2013, the Komato 2 Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap55, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.
3) As of November 11, 2015, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loans as of November 11, 2015 (i.e., the sum of the principal and interest of KRW 2,873,560,27 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 1,081,702,067, plus damages for delay) is KRW 1,791,858,210).
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages in accordance with the agreed rate of 25% per annum from November 12, 2015 to the date of full payment with respect to the principal amount of KRW 2,873,560,277 and the principal amount of KRW 1,081,702,067 within the limit of KRW 5,100,000,000, which is the limit of total guarantee amount of KRW 5,100.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Determination as to the non-existence of the instant collateral security contract 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)
(2) As the representative of the C Company: (a) understood that the instant loan was a collateral guarantee and signed on the instant contract; and (b) as the seal was made by a third party, not the Defendant, the evidence No. 5 asserts that the authenticity cannot be recognized; or (c) it is insufficient to recognize that the form of a lawful collateral guarantee contract was concluded between the Homatototo2 Savings Bank and the Defendant solely on the evidence No. 5. 2)