beta
Text
1. Defendant C, D, and E are jointly and severally liable for each of the Plaintiffs as from January 1, 2012.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs concluded the following investment contracts with Defendant C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) regarding the business of constructing a cultural center on the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant business”).
Article 1 (Investment)
1. The Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) will invest KRW 200,000,000 for the instant project to B (Defendant C, D, and E) by March 2, 2011.
Article 2 (Terms and Conditions of Investment)
2. B shall return 200,000,000 won by the end of December 2011.
Article 3 (Special Agreements)
3. Eul's joint and several guarantee of 200,000,000 investment amount to Gap.
B. On March 2, 2011, according to the instant investment contract, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 100,000,000 in each of the Defendant C’s accounts as an investment deposit. However, the Plaintiffs did not receive a refund of the said investment deposit after the lapse of December 31, 2011.
[Based on recognition] Defendant C, D: Service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act); Defendant E, F Corporation: The absence of dispute; the entries of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4; and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to Defendant C, D, and E
A. According to the above facts, the above Defendants agreed that each of the businesses of this case shall be invested in 100,000,000 won by the Plaintiffs, and shall be jointly and severally returned until December 31, 2011. As such, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay calculated at each of the rates of 10,000,000 won and 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from January 1, 2012 to November 25, 2014, the date following the date of return of the investment deposit, which is the date of final delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, from January 25, 2014, and the date of full payment from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, Defendant E is the actual principal obligor under the investment contract of this case, and Defendant E is an error in accordance with the investment contract of this case even though there was no intent to guarantee the obligation of Defendant C to the Plaintiffs.