beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally provide the Plaintiff with the advice of KRW 35,000,00 and that of Defendant Capital Co., Ltd from February 2, 2010.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 1, 2010, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A Co., Ltd”) issued the loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the loan amount of KRW 35,000,000, and the due date of payment on January 31, 201, and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum. Defendant B affixed the said loan agreement with the joint guarantor.
B. On February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 35,000,00 in the account under the name of the Defendant Company.
【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, Defendant Company is a principal debtor, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 35,00,000 as a joint and several surety, and as the Plaintiff seeks from February 2, 2010 to January 23, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, to January 23, 2017; Defendant B is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 15, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants had the Defendant Company participated as a service company for the Seongdong-gu Seoul Development Project, and accordingly constituted C’s redevelopment promotion committee. The Plaintiff delegated by Hyundai Construction, which is a contractor, provided a loan agreement prepared to report to Hyundai Construction in order to pay KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant Company as the service cost for the organization of the promotion committee. The Defendants thought that the Defendant Company received the personnel expenses and all expenses required for the organization of the promotion committee and affixed seals to the Defendant Company. Accordingly, the Defendant Company did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, but merely received the service cost to be paid to the Defendant Company.