beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 80,000,000 and Defendant B from July 27, 2016, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants KRW 30 million on October 23, 2010; (b) KRW 30 million on the 29th day of the same month; and (c) the Defendants promised to first pay the Plaintiff KRW 60 million on April 30, 201 as principal on May 2, 201, and pay the Plaintiff KRW 20 million as interest within two weeks.
“The fact that “A” prepares a letter of commitment implementation (Evidence 1) does not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant C can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement of evidence A No. 1.
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 27, 2016 to September 4, 2016, and from September 4, 2016 to the date of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., which is obviously indicated in the record that the Plaintiff is the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff, as a result of the above payment.
B. As to this, Defendant C argues that Defendant B’s commitment implementation note (Evidence A No. 1) does not have legal effect, and that Defendant C’s signature was made on the ground that there is no special content that Defendant C bears legal responsibility, and thus, Defendant C does not bear any liability therefor.
However, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendants who promised to pay the total amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 to the above documents are clear, and as such, defendant C is obliged to pay the above money to the plaintiff as stated in the above document.