beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 25 million and 5% per annum from April 5, 2008 to October 28, 2015; and (b)
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 3.
A. On June 22, 1998, the Plaintiff borrowed money to the Defendants several times and received a certificate of borrowing (Evidence A No. 1) stating the purport that the Defendants “a repayment of KRW 50 million by August 2, 1998,” and on the other hand, the Defendants’ signature and seal in the debtor column of the above certificate.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application against Defendant C for provisional attachment against the Defendant C for the amount of KRW 40 million as the Busan District Court Branch 2001Kadan10168 with respect to the D Apartment 904, Busan, Geum-gu, Busan, which was owned by the Defendant C. The provisional attachment registration on December 7, 2001 (hereinafter “the provisional attachment registration of this case”) was completed on the said real estate by accepting it by the above court.
C. On February 14, 2008, the registration of provisional seizure of this case was revoked around February 14, 2008. Defendant C repaid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff around this time.
2. The plaintiff's assertion is jointly and severally liable to refund the principal borrowed to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages. However, since the defendant received KRW 20 million from the defendant C at the time of cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure of this case and appropriated it for the repayment of principal, the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the borrowed principal to the plaintiff KRW 30 million and delay damages.
If there are several obligors, each obligor shall bear the obligation at an equal rate unless there is a special declaration of intention (Civil Code No. 408). Although the Defendants’ signature and seal are jointly stated in the debtor’s column of the loan certificate of this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendants jointly expressed their intent to repay the principal and interest of the loan, and otherwise, the Defendants’ intent to jointly and severally pay the loan from the Plaintiff.