beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as the interest rate from August 30, 2010 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including each number), the defendant A Corporation (hereinafter "the defendant Corporation") entered into a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter "the credit transaction agreement of this case") with the bankrupt Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter "Bankruptcy Bank") on January 30, 2009, the amount of credit (limit) amount is KRW 3,500,000,000, interest rate is 12% per annum, interest rate is 25% per annum, interest rate for delay is set at 25% per annum, and the defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt of the defendant corporation. ② The defendant Corporation delayed interest on loans under the above credit transaction agreement from August 30, 2010 to February 7, 2013, the principal amount is 3,569,291,429,208 won, interest interest rate is 208,198 won, interest rate is reasonable.
According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 200,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from August 30, 2010 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff expressly claims part of the remaining principal of the loan to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants’ assertion of false declaration of conspiracy was withdrawn on the third day of pleading on September 1, 2013, and thus, is not determined.
B. Defendant B asserts to the effect that “this case’s letter of credit transaction (No. 1-1) is affixed and sealed by Defendant B’s ASEAN at his own discretion, and thus, the authenticity of the said letter of credit transaction cannot be recognized.”
It is not sufficient to recognize that C had affixed the seals of Defendant B to the above credit transaction agreement, solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if C affixed the above letter of credit transaction with the seal of Defendant B, the entries and arguments of No. 1-3 and No. 4 are as follows.