beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff loaned KRW 66 million to defendant B on April 1, 2003 by setting the interest rate of KRW 66% per annum, maturity of payment October 7, 2003, defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation of the defendant Eul, and the plaintiff with respect to the above loan obligation of the defendant Eul on behalf of the defendants, a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarized money loan contract No. 6092 of document No. 6092 of document No. 6092 of document No. 2003, Sept. 30, 2003 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case") on behalf of the defendants, and the plaintiff was paid KRW 8,45,647 won from the defendants on November 12, 2003.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from November 13, 2003 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that only 2 million won borrowed from the Plaintiff and that they fully repaid the principal and interest of the above 2 million won. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendants asserted that, at the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendants issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the Plaintiff at the time of borrowing KRW 2 million, but they did not delegate the Plaintiff with the preparation of the instant notarial deed.
In light of the above facts, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendants' above assertion, and rather, according to Gap evidence No. 2-1 through No. 3, the plaintiff can only recognize the facts entrusted by the defendants and commissioned the defendants to prepare the No. 1 of this case on behalf of the defendants by legitimate title. Thus, the defendants' assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so accepted.