beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 198,482,223 and KRW 114,630,698 among them; (b) from July 31, 2014 to July 31, 2015.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) on April 10, 2007 with repayment date fixed on April 11, 2008, and on July 31, 2014, the remainder of the above loan obligation as of July 31, 2014 remains at KRW 114,630,698, 83,781, 92, and the provisional payment amount of KRW 69,533. As to the above loan obligation, Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant E were to the extent of KRW 390,000,000,000,000 for each of the above loan obligation, and Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and Defendant F Co., Ltd concluded a joint and several guarantee contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant D and the Parties, or between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and it is clearly found that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the remainder of the Defendants.
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the money to the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.
[However, pursuant to the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015), the portion for which the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeds the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 is dismissed]. 2. Determination as to Defendant D and Defendant E’s claim
A. The above Defendants asserted that the first repayment date of Defendant A’s loan obligation of this case (hereinafter “the principal obligation of this case”) has expired on April 11, 2008 with the five-year commercial extinctive prescription, and the principal obligation of this case has expired, and thus, Defendant D and Defendant E’s joint and several surety obligation (hereinafter “joint and several surety obligation of this case”) has expired.
The fact that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A to extend the redemption period of the principal obligation of this case to April 11, 2009 and April 11, 201, respectively, on April 2009, and on April 201, 209, that there was no dispute between the parties or part of the Defendant B.