beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the Defendant C with respect thereto from December 10, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff was solicited by Defendant B to invest in the apartment sale agency, and invested KRW 50,000,000 to Defendant B.
B. On December 9, 2005, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant B to provide a security for investment funds. Accordingly, Defendant B entered into a collateral security agreement with the creditor and mortgagee, Defendant B, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant C, the maximum debt amount, KRW 90,000,00 with respect to the E site and KRW 357 square meters and above ground at the time of residence owned by the Defendant C on December 9, 2005, and completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on December 15, 2005.
C. However, upon finding out that there was no value as collateral for the said real estate, Defendant B issued additional notes on the issuer, issue amount of KRW 50,000,000, due date, December 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, witness G testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 50,000,000 as of December 9, 2015 when issuing the Promissory Notes in this case. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 10, 2015, the following day after the due date of the agreement, for Defendant C, as of December 16, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and for Defendant B, 5% per annum as of April 27, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum as of the next day until the date of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C terminated each of the instant mortgage contract, and even if valid, the extinctive prescription has expired since the lapse of 10 years from December 15, 2005, which was the date of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security. As such, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.