beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant B:
(a) 278,228,631 won and 229,942
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: as shown in Appendix 1;
(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. On November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant B for interest rateing to 2% (payment on the fifth day of each month) and on November 4, 2011. The Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s above loan obligation.
In addition, on November 10, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,00 to Defendant C with interest rate of KRW 2% (payment on July of each month) and the due date of payment on May 7, 2011, and Defendant B guaranteed the Defendant C’s above loan obligation.
However, the Plaintiff received total of KRW 134,300,00 from December 7, 2010 to August 20, 2013 with respect to each of the above loans claims, and when the Plaintiff appropriated the said loans to repay the repayment to each of the above loans claims, the amount that the Plaintiff was not paid in relation to each of the above loans claims is the total of KRW 278,228,228,631 as of August 20, 2013, including the principal, KRW 229,942,446, and interest KRW 48,286,185.
Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from August 21, 2013 to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant C’s assertion 1) Defendant C had the court rendered bankruptcy and application for immunity on May 27, 2015.
Meanwhile, at the time of application for immunity, Defendant C did not enter the Plaintiff’s respective loan claims (hereinafter “each of the instant claims”) on November 5, 2010 and November 10, 2010 in the creditor list against Defendant C at the time of application for immunity. However, this is because Defendant C was unaware of the existence of each of the instant claims prior to the determination of exemption.
Therefore, Defendant C’s liability for each of the instant claims was exempted.
Even if Defendant C knows the existence of each of the instant claims.