beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 26,038,640 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from January 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4, 5, and Eul evidence 1, and witness Gap and Eul evidence 1, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of ready-mixeds on June 30, 2014 with A and A, and the defendant jointly guaranteed the defendant's obligation to supply ready-mixeds to the plaintiff under the above contract for the supply of ready-mixeds. The plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds worth KRW 50,681,400 (including value-added tax) to A until August 2014 according to the above contract for the supply of ready-mixeds, and Eul paid the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 24,642,760 (including value-added tax) by November 17, 2014.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay as a guarantor 26,038,640 won (=50,681,400 won-24,642,760 won) payable to the plaintiff as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum from January 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, from January 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
(Provided, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum after October 1, 2015. However, the “Rules on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings” was amended on October 1, 2015, and the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings is changed to 15% per annum, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed in part). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the aforementioned joint and several guarantee was made by an expression of intention and was aware or could have known of the fact by the Plaintiff’s employee who participated in the guarantee at the time of the declaration of intention.
Each description of No. 9-1, 2 alone constitutes a false declaration of intention that the joint and several guarantees constitute a false declaration of intention.
(1) At the time of such fact, the Plaintiff’s employee.