beta
Text
1. The defendant shall jointly and severally with C to the plaintiff 290,000,000 won and its related amount from August 10, 2018 to January 17, 2019.
Reasons
As the Plaintiff and the Defendant and C (hereinafter “C”) leased KRW 300,00,000 to the Defendant and C (hereinafter “C”), the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and C are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200,000 to the Defendant and C on December 16, 2016 as due date for payment of KRW 12,00,000,000 to the Defendant and C on May 31, 2017, it is evident that the Plaintiff had not determined the due date for payment by additionally lending KRW 100,00,000 to the Defendant and C on the basis of the principal amount, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 100,000,000 from each of the above loans under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 100,000,000 as interest on each of this case.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay 290,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
The defendant's defense that C paid part of the above debt to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally obligated with C to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 290,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 10, 2018 to January 17, 2019, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (in the case of loans made on December 6, 2016) or the date of repayment (in the case of loans made on May 31, 2017) or from August 10, 2018, which is due (in the case of loans made on May 31, 2017) as requested by the plaintiff, to the extent that the defendant claims against the plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the extent of the above recognition.